Another shooting on campus

[Coleman]

So by the numbers here (which I am neither substantiating nor disputing) for every five homicides by firearm, there is one homicide by knife.  Yet I tend to agree with Chico's underlying  point that the media reports of homicide by firearm outnumber the media reports by knife by drastically more than 5:1.  If true, that's not context, that's subjective reporting.

Personally, I can't think of the last time I saw a stabbing death in the news.  Yet I wouldn't be surprised if the media averages one death report per day when it comes to guns.  Whether or not it happens by mass shooting is irrelevant.  An individual's death isn't rendered more or less important because of the numbers involved.

Although, I wouldn't call any of this an anti-gun or gun-control agenda... I think the media is just doing what it does so well: hyping and trumping up stories that drive the biggest ratings.  If knife fights drove more to hysterics than gun violence, every stabbing would be front page news.

Media reporting is not reflective of the exact ratio of events as they occur. Its unrealistic to expect reporting on something that happens 20% as frequently, 20% of the time because it is not a proportional thing.

Media tends to take the biggest 4 or 5 issues and report on them relentlessly. Its not necessarily an issue of bias but rather using story lines that they know will resonate because they have impacted more people and people tend to feel more passionately about it. That's really all it comes down to. Its about making money.

[ChicosBailBonds]

No one here is disputing that the three people killed by knife have less worthy deaths. However, as you yourself said, (mass) knife killings don't happen multiple times per year. Campus (or other mass) shootings do happen multiple times per year all over the country. That is context, not an agenda.

You are trying to obfuscate the broader issue of mass shootings with your concern trolling over the knife deaths.

I have a simple question. Do you think mass shootings are a problem in America, and why or why not?

I think you are ignoring the numbers and you are a numbers guy.  How many people are murdered each year by something other than a firearm?  How much of that is reported and is it with the same zest?  I'll let you decide that, but I have my opinion.

Your question is a bit odd to me.  Do I think mass shootings are a problem in America...of course.  Innocent people dying is not a good thing.  Do I think millions of aborted innocent people each year is a problem...yes, but a lot of people on the left don't.  We can ask these types of questions and go one layer deep to expose the hypocrisy quite quickly.  Innocent deaths are innocent deaths.

My problem is who or what gets the blame.  The UCSB example is the perfect example.  All one has to do is watch this guy's videos, read his manifesto and he was going to do harm no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT.  In fact, he did...with his car, with a knife, with guns.  Yet the focus is on the guns.  Did you know the last time there was a mass killing at UCSB was 2004....how?  Guy drove his car into a crowded street killing 4 people.   

I have a problem with the 99.9% of people that handle guns just fine, every single day and the crowd on the other side that wants to take them away (and please don't say "no one is saying take them away"...in fact, many people are) because of the actions of some nutjobs.  I prefer to live in a society in which the citizenry can be armed, not just the govt.  It sucks that there are deranged people that use weapons to kill people, be it guns, knives, backpacks with pressure cookers.  It also sucks, in my opinion, that some people think the only solution is the banning of the weapon and not the core issue.

Finally, the irony is not lost on my that this killer is the son of Hollywood director who has to his credits a movie in which kids kill other kids, the Hunger Games.   The money earned from that movie (which I enjoyed), probably helped to pay for the kid's SUV and BMW that he used to try and kill people with.

[Henry Sugar]

So by the numbers here (which I am neither substantiating nor disputing) for every five homicides by firearm, there is one homicide by knife.  Yet I tend to agree with Chico's underlying  point that the media reports of homicide by firearm outnumber the media reports by knife by drastically more than 5:1.  If true, that's not context, that's subjective reporting.

Personally, I can't think of the last time I saw a stabbing death in the news.  Yet I wouldn't be surprised if the media averages one death report per day when it comes to guns.  Whether or not it happens by mass shooting is irrelevant.  An individual's death isn't rendered more or less important because of the numbers involved.

Although, I wouldn't call any of this an anti-gun or gun-control agenda... I think the media is just doing what it does so well: hyping and trumping up stories that drive the biggest ratings.  If knife fights drove more to hysterics than gun violence, every stabbing would be front page news.

We miss the full implications of gun deaths by focusing only on homicides. The ratio becomes far more than just 5:1. For example, from the New England Journal of Medicine (emphasis mine).

Firearms were used to kill 30,143 people in the United States in 2005, the most recent year with complete data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1 A total of 17,002 of these were suicides, 12,352 homicides, and 789 accidental firearm deaths. Nearly half of these deaths occurred in people under the age of 35. When we consider that there were also nearly 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms, we are left with the staggering fact that 100,000 men, women, and children were killed or wounded by firearms in the span of just one year.

I also agree with you that mass shootings drive more news than anything else.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Just back from Mexico where stringent gun laws work to keep everybody safe.  I am particularly heartened when I approach an ATM to secure some pesos and it is guarded by someone in full battle armor and a riot shotgun.

 

[Lennys Tap]

It sucks that there are deranged people that use weapons to kill people, be it guns, knives, backpacks with pressure cookers.  It also sucks, in my opinion, that some people think the only solution is the banning of the weapon and not the core issue.

I'm all for doing a better job of identifying and institutionalizing the dangerously mentally ill. I'm also all for sane legislation that would prevent those who may have fallen through the cracks or haven't completely gone off the reservation (yet) from buying firearms at gun shows with no background checks. Why is either stance even controversial? Wing nuts.

[swoopem]

For you guys who say knife attacks aren't in the news what about the kid from Frankin, PA who attacked and stabbed 21 people at his school just a few months ago? That was all over the news

[Henry Sugar]

I think you are ignoring the numbers and you are a numbers guy.  How many people are murdered each year by something other than a firearm?  How much of that is reported and is it with the same zest?  I'll let you decide that, but I have my opinion.

There's your answer on violent deaths by age category, quantity, and type. Guns aren't only the first leading cause of death, they are the second leading cause of death.

I have a problem with the 99.9% of people that handle guns just fine, every single day and the crowd on the other side that wants to take them away (and please don't say "no one is saying take them away"...in fact, many people are) because of the actions of some nutjobs.  I prefer to live in a society in which the citizenry can be armed, not just the govt.  It sucks that there are deranged people that use weapons to kill people, be it guns, knives, backpacks with pressure cookers.  It also sucks, in my opinion, that some people think the only solution is the banning of the weapon and not the core issue.

You're railing against a problem that doesn't exist. There are over 300 million guns in America. I want you to consider the practical logistics of trying to reduce the total amount of guns by half, or a third, or even one tenth... if the political will even existed. It's impossible.

The gun lobby won years ago. Guns are going to continue to be the leading cause of death. We're going to continue to see mass shootings. The media will continue to spin it up. People will get outraged on both sides.

Why bother? We would all be more productive praying that none of us are ever impacted.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Source?

[reinko]

I think you are ignoring the numbers and you are a numbers guy.  How many people are murdered each year by something other than a firearm?  How much of that is reported and is it with the same zest?  I'll let you decide that, but I have my opinion.

Your question is a bit odd to me.  Do I think mass shootings are a problem in America...of course.  Innocent people dying is not a good thing.  Do I think millions of aborted innocent people each year is a problem...yes, but a lot of people on the left don't.  We can ask these types of questions and go one layer deep to expose the hypocrisy quite quickly.  Innocent deaths are innocent deaths.

My problem is who or what gets the blame.  The UCSB example is the perfect example.  All one has to do is watch this guy's videos, read his manifesto and he was going to do harm no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT.  In fact, he did...with his car, with a knife, with guns.  Yet the focus is on the guns.  Did you know the last time there was a mass killing at UCSB was 2004....how?  Guy drove his car into a crowded street killing 4 people.  

I have a problem with the 99.9% of people that handle guns just fine, every single day and the crowd on the other side that wants to take them away (and please don't say "no one is saying take them away"...in fact, many people are) because of the actions of some nutjobs.  I prefer to live in a society in which the citizenry can be armed, not just the govt.  It sucks that there are deranged people that use weapons to kill people, be it guns, knives, backpacks with pressure cookers.  It also sucks, in my opinion, that some people think the only solution is the banning of the weapon and not the core issue.

Finally, the irony is not lost on my that this killer is the son of Hollywood director who has to his credits a movie in which kids kill other kids, the Hunger Games.   The money earned from that movie (which I enjoyed), probably helped to pay for the kid's SUV and BMW that he used to try and kill people with.

How do bad guys get guns in this country? At some point nearly every gun was legally purchased (other than a tiny fraction illegally smuggled.)  Call it 95%+ guns started out as legal purchases, and this culture of our country of more guns, more ammo, more guns, the govt coming for my guns, I need more guns, guns, ammo, clips.

You say, well that cat is already out of the bag, too many guns to track down, and then only bad guys will have them.  Well how about restricting ammo purchases, or doing background checks on those buying ammo for the type of guns used most frequently in crimes.  Nope.

So when some common sense measures that 90% of people agree on, for example, a background check at a gun show.  I mean that is controversial in this country, running a background check at a gun show.  Or straw gun purchases, or heavens to betsy, getting a gun registered.  You have to register you car for crying out loud, take a driving test, renew your license every few years, but try to do something similar with Jimbo's Desert Eagle .45, and everyone goes ape crap.   Gun manufactures push this agenda the govt is coming for guns, so you need to buy more more more.  I mean we have politicians raffling off assault rifles in exchange for peoples email addresses.  This is 2014.

Go USA I guess.

[Lennys Tap]

How do bad guys get guns in this country? At some point nearly every gun was legally purchased (other than a tiny fraction illegally smuggled.)  Call it 95%+ guns started out as legal purchases, and this culture of our country of more guns, more ammo, more guns, the govt coming for my guns, I need more guns, guns, ammo, clips.

You say, well that cat is already out of the bag, too many guns to track down, and then only bad guys will have them.  Well how about restricting ammo purchases, or doing background checks on those buying ammo for the type of guns used most frequently in crimes.  Nope.

So when some common sense measures that 90% of people agree on, for example, a background check at a gun show.  I mean that is controversial in this country, running a background check at a gun show.  Or straw gun purchases, or heavens to betsy, getting a gun registered.  You have to register you car for crying out loud, take a driving test, renew your license every few years, but try to do something similar with Jimbo's Desert Eagle .45, and everyone goes ape crap.   Gun manufactures push this agenda the govt is coming for guns, so you need to buy more more more.  I mean we have politicians raffling off assault rifles in exchange for peoples email addresses.  This is 2014.

Go USA I guess.

Way too much common sense in this post. What say you, Chico? Are the no background checks at gun shows guys the mirror image of the no ban on partial birth abortion guys?

[Spotcheck Billy]

I'm all for doing a better job of identifying and institutionalizing the dangerously mentally ill. I'm also all for sane legislation that would prevent those who may have fallen through the cracks or haven't completely gone off the reservation (yet) from buying firearms at gun shows with no background checks. Why is either stance even controversial? Wing nuts.

racist

[Coleman]

How do bad guys get guns in this country? At some point nearly every gun was legally purchased (other than a tiny fraction illegally smuggled.)  Call it 95%+ guns started out as legal purchases, and this culture of our country of more guns, more ammo, more guns, the govt coming for my guns, I need more guns, guns, ammo, clips.

You say, well that cat is already out of the bag, too many guns to track down, and then only bad guys will have them.  Well how about restricting ammo purchases, or doing background checks on those buying ammo for the type of guns used most frequently in crimes.  Nope.

So when some common sense measures that 90% of people agree on, for example, a background check at a gun show.  I mean that is controversial in this country, running a background check at a gun show.  Or straw gun purchases, or heavens to betsy, getting a gun registered.  You have to register you car for crying out loud, take a driving test, renew your license every few years, but try to do something similar with Jimbo's Desert Eagle .45, and everyone goes ape crap.   Gun manufactures push this agenda the govt is coming for guns, so you need to buy more more more.  I mean we have politicians raffling off assault rifles in exchange for peoples email addresses.  This is 2014.

Go USA I guess.

Incredibly well said

[WellsstreetWanderer]

How do bad guys get guns in this country? At some point nearly every gun was legally purchased (other than a tiny fraction illegally smuggled.)  Call it 95%+ guns started out as legal purchases, and this culture of our country of more guns, more ammo, more guns, the govt coming for my guns, I need more guns, guns, ammo, clips.

You say, well that cat is already out of the bag, too many guns to track down, and then only bad guys will have them.  Well how about restricting ammo purchases, or doing background checks on those buying ammo for the type of guns used most frequently in crimes.  Nope.

So when some common sense measures that 90% of people agree on, for example, a background check at a gun show.  I mean that is controversial in this country, running a background check at a gun show.  Or straw gun purchases, or heavens to betsy, getting a gun registered.  You have to register you car for crying out loud, take a driving test, renew your license every few years, but try to do something similar with Jimbo's Desert Eagle .45, and everyone goes ape crap.   Gun manufactures push this agenda the govt is coming for guns, so you need to buy more more more.  I mean we have politicians raffling off assault rifles in exchange for peoples email addresses.  This is 2014.

Go USA I guess.

   How do the Mexicans obtain guns which are illegal? ( other than  from the US DOJ) Go to a gun show , you can't buy a gun here without a background check and waiting period. The laws are on the books but people get around them. After England confiscated most firearms "hot" burglaries increased and shootings did as well. You are stereotyping most gun owners who are responsible and law abiding. And yes, the government  started making noises about taking guns and politicians began to pontificate and regular people got nervous and bought guns.
https://blu180.afx.ms/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=8c943078-e3b5-11e3-b04b-6c3be5a7fae4&attindex=20&cp=-1&attdepth=20&imgsrc=cid%3a862602FBC2714150A30E969E1432C8B0%40aldonnaPC&cid=62572fe70c58b031&blob=MjB8QVRUMDAwMDEuanBnfGltYWdlL2pwZWc_3d&hm__login=loftusrp&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.148.78.8&d=d437&mf=32&hm__ts=Wed%2c%2028%20May%202014%2018%3a32%3a22%20GMT&st=loftusrp&hm__ha=01_de0baa32b6c715e74ec315252cface0dc88c62ae6fb07b3031ba6bb485ab0a47&oneredir=1

[Benny B]

   How do the Mexicans obtain guns which are illegal? ( other than  from the US DOJ) Go to a gun show , you can't buy a gun here without a background check and waiting period. The laws are on the books but people get around them. After England confiscated most firearms "hot" burglaries increased and shootings did as well. You are stereotyping most gun owners who are responsible and law abiding. And yes, the government  started making noises about taking guns and politicians began to pontificate and regular people got nervous and bought guns.
https://blu180.afx.ms/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=8c943078-e3b5-11e3-b04b-6c3be5a7fae4&attindex=20&cp=-1&attdepth=20&imgsrc=cid%3a862602FBC2714150A30E969E1432C8B0%40aldonnaPC&cid=62572fe70c58b031&blob=MjB8QVRUMDAwMDEuanBnfGltYWdlL2pwZWc_3d&hm__login=loftusrp&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.148.78.8&d=d437&mf=32&hm__ts=Wed%2c%2028%20May%202014%2018%3a32%3a22%20GMT&st=loftusrp&hm__ha=01_de0baa32b6c715e74ec315252cface0dc88c62ae6fb07b3031ba6bb485ab0a47&oneredir=1

By definition, you cannot stereotype "most" of any group.  You stereotype the group.  And Chico's statement that most gun owners are law abiding citizens is not a stereotype... it's an accurate & factual statement.  That is, unless you're going to set aside drivers who go 66 in a 65 mph zone, people who tear mattress tags off and homeowners who don't mow their grass until it's over 4-1/2" tall from the "law-abiding" group.

[reinko]

   How do the Mexicans obtain guns which are illegal? ( other than  from the US DOJ) Go to a gun show , you can't buy a gun here without a background check and waiting period. The laws are on the books but people get around them. After England confiscated most firearms "hot" burglaries increased and shootings did as well. You are stereotyping most gun owners who are responsible and law abiding. And yes, the government  started making noises about taking guns and politicians began to pontificate and regular people got nervous and bought guns.
https://blu180.afx.ms/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=8c943078-e3b5-11e3-b04b-6c3be5a7fae4&attindex=20&cp=-1&attdepth=20&imgsrc=cid%3a862602FBC2714150A30E969E1432C8B0%40aldonnaPC&cid=62572fe70c58b031&blob=MjB8QVRUMDAwMDEuanBnfGltYWdlL2pwZWc_3d&hm__login=loftusrp&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.148.78.8&d=d437&mf=32&hm__ts=Wed%2c%2028%20May%202014%2018%3a32%3a22%20GMT&st=loftusrp&hm__ha=01_de0baa32b6c715e74ec315252cface0dc88c62ae6fb07b3031ba6bb485ab0a47&oneredir=1

First off, broken link.  And not sure about that whole Mexican thing in the first sentence, but it sounds like a clear and valid point.  Is it some lame joke attempt at the Fast and Furious scandal??

Secondly, I talked about the US culture as a whole with an obsession with firearms.  My point being, because of this obsession for a very long time, more and more guns find their way to the streets, you have to agree on that right?  Criminals ain't building firearms in their garages, they are everywhere because as a nation (people, the media, politicians, the NRA, Hollywood) for too long did not respect the sheer deadly consequences this obsession with guns has made our country into.  

Of course, the vast majority of gun owners own less than 3 guns, are law abiding, and never have an issue owning a gun.  But you know what comes with that responsibility, the strongest protections possible from trying to stop wackaloons from running into schools, or movie theaters, or a beach boardwalk, or Army barracks strapped to the gills with firearms.

And gun owners, like yourself are now crying foul because past generations didn't do what needed to be done in the first place. ya know what, too bad.  I say the same thing to people complaining about SS not being there in 30 years, tough crap.  Move on, stop your whining.

And to those politicians who cower because of Wayne LaPierre, screw you.  And to the nuts who think that we should round up all the LEGAL firearms from law abiding citizens, screw you too, you are not helping.

[ChicosBailBonds]

How do bad guys get guns in this country? At some point nearly every gun was legally purchased (other than a tiny fraction illegally smuggled.)  Call it 95%+ guns started out as legal purchases, and this culture of our country of more guns, more ammo, more guns, the govt coming for my guns, I need more guns, guns, ammo, clips.

You say, well that cat is already out of the bag, too many guns to track down, and then only bad guys will have them.  Well how about restricting ammo purchases, or doing background checks on those buying ammo for the type of guns used most frequently in crimes.  Nope.

So when some common sense measures that 90% of people agree on, for example, a background check at a gun show.  I mean that is controversial in this country, running a background check at a gun show.  Or straw gun purchases, or heavens to betsy, getting a gun registered.  You have to register you car for crying out loud, take a driving test, renew your license every few years, but try to do something similar with Jimbo's Desert Eagle .45, and everyone goes ape crap.   Gun manufactures push this agenda the govt is coming for guns, so you need to buy more more more.  I mean we have politicians raffling off assault rifles in exchange for peoples email addresses.  This is 2014.

Go USA I guess.

Good arguments.  Allow me to respond on a few of them.

First of all, I'm not against common sense measures as I've said time and time again. The problem I have is too many people on the left don't want to stop there, it's all or nothing.  That's a problem.  The reason why law abiding gun owners are so put off by those people is that the law abiding gun owners aren't doing anything wrong and they feel that these folks are in a mode of all or nothing.  That has to be addressed in terms of the overall discussion.

The second point is around trust.  We've been hearing the term "common sense measures" for several decades, and despite what one side will say, many of them have been put into place.  Yet it hasn't done much, if anything.  The concern of gun owners is that you will continue to apply "common sense measures" again, and again, and again and as each one fails to work, it goes deeper and deeper into an end game of total removal, which is the end goal for some people.  It just is, they have flat out said it.  Zero guns, period.  So there is a great deal of mistrust on the give an inch, take a mile side of the issue, especially for the 100 million people that have guns and don't do anything wrong with them.

On your specific points, yes most guns are purchased legally the first time.  Some are stolen, some are resold, etc.  I'm not crazy about the gov't telling me what I can do with my private property, bought legally, but I'll concede on your point for a bit.  The question I have is, what do you propose?  I've heard some people say they want to put the onus on the original gun owner as to whom he/she sells the gun to in a private transaction.  Honestly, how is that person going to know what the buyer is going to do with it? How stable that person is?  Or, if the buyer doesn't turn around and give it to someone else, sell it to someone else.  Have it stolen, whatever.  The chain of custody is very problematic.  Furthermore, what is the outcome here.  If I buy a gun lawfully and 3 years from now I sell it to you and you use it to kill someone, am I liable?  What about the car I sell to college kid who decides to mow down a bunch of people with it, am I liable?

Things like background checks at gun shows....sure.  Fine.  Some of the other measures...sure...fine.  I think you are going to find that ultimately, they don't do a damn thing.  A person willing to commit that heinous of a crime will find a way. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

We miss the full implications of gun deaths by focusing only on homicides. The ratio becomes far more than just 5:1. For example, from the New England Journal of Medicine (emphasis mine).

I also agree with you that mass shootings drive more news than anything else.

I'd be curious to know how many of those suicides would have happened anyway, but with a different tool (drugs, hanging, etc).  Knowing someone in my family that went down this path, but without a gun, it is the end conclusion they seek.  Freedom from their pain and suffering and they find a way to get to that end state.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm all for doing a better job of identifying and institutionalizing the dangerously mentally ill. I'm also all for sane legislation that would prevent those who may have fallen through the cracks or haven't completely gone off the reservation (yet) from buying firearms at gun shows with no background checks. Why is either stance even controversial? Wing nuts.

I'm for both as well.  I can lay out the arguments of both sides why they are controversial, pretty simple to do.

[ChicosBailBonds]

For you guys who say knife attacks aren't in the news what about the kid from Frankin, PA who attacked and stabbed 21 people at his school just a few months ago? That was all over the news

Always exceptions to the rule.  In this particular case at UCSB, their is an agenda to be driven which is why the deaths by gunshot are leveraged in the story, while the deaths via the knife are a throw-in....a cheap collateral damage remark by some pushing the agenda.  Don't believe me, turn on the radio out here in So. Cal where this has been the constant talk the last few days.  Three deaths counted more than three others.  Sad, but that's the story.

[ChicosBailBonds]

And to those politicians who cower because of Wayne LaPierre, screw you.  And to the nuts who think that we should round up all the LEGAL firearms from law abiding citizens, screw you too, you are not helping.

What if they are not cowering at all, but simply believe in the right as laid out in our Constitution and reaffirmed many times over by the Supreme Court of the United States of America?  Maybe they are simply trying to follow the Constitution, an oath that they took when sworn in as an elected member of government.

[Coleman]

I'd be curious to know how many of those suicides would have happened anyway, but with a different tool (drugs, hanging, etc).  Knowing someone in my family that went down this path, but without a gun, it is the end conclusion they seek.  Freedom from their pain and suffering and they find a way to get to that end state.

It can be done other ways, but guns are certainly the most effective. Many, many more people try to hang themselves or OD and survive. And many of those end up glad they did survive down the road. There would most certainly be fewer deaths if people had to find other methods of killing themselves.

Just like there would still be homicides without guns. But certainly many fewer. Someone would not be able to conduct a mass stabbing in a movie theater and kill more than a handful of people before being accosted. They just couldn't.

[reinko]

Good arguments.  Allow me to respond on a few of them.

First of all, I'm not against common sense measures as I've said time and time again. The problem I have is too many people on the left don't want to stop there, it's all or nothing.  That's a problem.  The reason why law abiding gun owners are so put off by those people is that the law abiding gun owners aren't doing anything wrong and they feel that these folks are in a mode of all or nothing.  That has to be addressed in terms of the overall discussion.

The second point is around trust.  We've been hearing the term "common sense measures" for several decades, and despite what one side will say, many of them have been put into place.  Yet it hasn't done much, if anything.  The concern of gun owners is that you will continue to apply "common sense measures" again, and again, and again and as each one fails to work, it goes deeper and deeper into an end game of total removal, which is the end goal for some people.  It just is, they have flat out said it.  Zero guns, period.  So there is a great deal of mistrust on the give an inch, take a mile side of the issue, especially for the 100 million people that have guns and don't do anything wrong with them.

On your specific points, yes most guns are purchased legally the first time.  Some are stolen, some are resold, etc.  I'm not crazy about the gov't telling me what I can do with my private property, bought legally, but I'll concede on your point for a bit.  The question I have is, what do you propose?  I've heard some people say they want to put the onus on the original gun owner as to whom he/she sells the gun to in a private transaction.  Honestly, how is that person going to know what the buyer is going to do with it? How stable that person is?  Or, if the buyer doesn't turn around and give it to someone else, sell it to someone else.  Have it stolen, whatever.  The chain of custody is very problematic.  Furthermore, what is the outcome here.  If I buy a gun lawfully and 3 years from now I sell it to you and you use it to kill someone, am I liable?  What about the car I sell to college kid who decides to mow down a bunch of people with it, am I liable?

Things like background checks at gun shows....sure.  Fine.  Some of the other measures...sure...fine.  I think you are going to find that ultimately, they don't do a damn thing.  A person willing to commit that heinous of a crime will find a way. 

Fair response as well.  To your point around stolen guns, if they were locked up, and still stolen.  Nope, not your fault.  To idiots, like this politician who leaves machine guns in her garage?  Hell to the yes.  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ar-15-rifle-stolen-from-rep-ellmers-nc-home-98719.html

(Now do me a favor, and don't troll me that if someone steal a butcher knife from my house, then stabs someone 6 months down the road, am I at fault... 

To your last paragraph, if we can't even muster enough political support for background checks @ gun shows, clearly something is wrong in this country, right?  The wacky 10% of gun nuts is ruining it for the rest of everyone, that sucks. 

You talk slippery slope, but what about the 16,000 guns manufactured every day in this country (and rising)...more and more of them will end up in the hands of bad dudes.  Our culture, gun manufacturers, and a small, but powerful minority of folks think the solution to crime is more guns, but fail to recognize that it is easier than ever for criminals to get guns, and will get easier as more and more get produced, sold, resold, lost, stolen...

Wingnuts and gun manufacturers have played this fear mongering card for the last 50 years.

Rinse. Repeat.

[brandx]

What if they are not cowering at all, but simply believe in the right as laid out in our Constitution and reaffirmed many times over by the Supreme Court of the United States of America?  Maybe they are simply trying to follow the Constitution, an oath that they took when sworn in as an elected member of government.

What is inscribed on the wall at the NRA headquarters? "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

It's very interesting that they never mention the entire statement. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why only the 2nd half? Is the NRA afraid that the American people know what the Constitution actually says?

[brandx]

And to those politicians who cower because of Wayne LaPierre, screw you.  And to the nuts who think that we should round up all the LEGAL firearms from law abiding citizens, screw you too, you are not helping.

+1

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

There seems to be a John Oliver quote circulating now:

"One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport. Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."