NYC Subway Shooting

[ATL MU Warrior]

I assumed it was a rhetorical question.  I'm not an idiot and you were clearly implying something that didn't need to be said.  REPUBLICANS OPPOSE FURTHER GUN LEGISLATION.  Better?

There are many MANY factors and groups at fault for the gun problem in America and further stalemates at provoking meaningful change, laying it at the feet of opposing party politicians to further the "our guys good, those guys bad" mentality which exemplifies politics in the 21st century is reductive and tribal.

That does need to be said. Over and over and over until something is done about the problem.

[JWags85]

No, it's accountability. You can play the "both sides" (or "many groups") all you want, but it simply isn't true or accurate. Only one side is accountable for the gun problem in America.

Do you think the NRA is more accountable for the problem than the GOP?

That does need to be said. Over and over and over until something is done about the problem.

Maybe the problem is people don't actually care.  Only 30% of Americans own a gun, and of that 60-65% of those owners lean right.  Thats plenty of people to groundswell and actually affect change, instead of complaining and expecting politicians to do it.

I'm not excusing any politician, I'm just beyond expecting them to be anything but self serving mercenaries who only answer to and fear election losses.  People expecting them to be altruistic and thinking of the greater good are like people being shocked that a tiger eats someone who jumps into its enclosure.

NRA membership is not even a quarter of gun owners in the most gun loving country in the world, yet they are the most powerful lobby in the country.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Do you think the NRA is more accountable for the problem than the GOP?

They are the exact same side.

[dgies9156]

REPUBLICANS OPPOSE FURTHER GUN LEGISLATION. 

Not all of us do!

I'm a registered Republican in Florida and I favor bans on automatic and semi-automatic weapons and Kelvar piercing bullets. I can't stand the NRA but I agree with them that there should be a special place in prison for people who commit crimes with firearms. Any crime -- and that includes having an unregistered firearm -- should get you a paroleless trip to a nearby supermax prison.

Gun control by itself isn't the answer. What might work for Chicago won't work for Fairbanks, Alaska, where a friend of mine lives in a heavily wooded suburb and carries a handgun to scare off the moose and bears that wander on to his property. Chicago gun control also won't work in rural Montana, where a handgun is protection in a part of the world where the nearest police officer at any given time is an hour away. One gun bill does not fit all.

Gun control in many cases fails to recognize the hunter. Take away deer hunting in Wisconsin and alcohol consumption triples. It's one of the three pillars of life in Wisconsin (the other two being booze and the Packers).

The answer is punishment, beginning with illegal possession and going all the way up to "throw away the key" for people who kill with guns. We don't like to talk like this anymore in society but we need to start basically saying "your life is over" if you commit a gun crime.

P.S. -- I don't own a gun and never will. I think too many of my fellow Floridians are nuts. The gun culture here is illogical and absurd.

[Pakuni]

Can't believe Lizzo was the subway shooter.

Don't quit your day job, Carlin.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Don't quit your day job, Carlin.

 

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Wags, nobody opposes ALL gun laws that is simply false. The current laws are not respected by criminals
 and with repeat offenders being released immediately to reoffend sometimes within hours) many people are arming themselves for protection. What doesn't get reported are the hundreds of times that a crime is thwarted or a bodily harm is averted because someone had a firearm. If you don't want to own a gun fine don't cancel someone else's right .
  Some of Y'all need to read the Federalist Papers for background.

[Goose]

dgies

I agree completely with your post. I will sit back and see why that way of thinking is completely wrong, but very good post.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Gun control by itself isn't the answer. What might work for Chicago won't work for Fairbanks, Alaska, where a friend of mine lives in a heavily wooded suburb and carries a handgun to scare off the moose and bears that wonder on to his property. Chicago gun control also won't work in rural Montana, where a handgun is protection in a part of the world where the nearest police officer at any given time is an hour away. One gun bill does not fit all.

Gun control in many cases fails to recognize the hunter. Take away deer hunting in Wisconsin and alcohol consumption triples. It's one of the three pillars of life in Wisconsin (the other two being booze and the Packers).

I think you are misusing the term "gun control" to imply the elimination of guns. It isn't. If you look through multiple threads on scoop where the issue has been previously discussed, none of the numerous suggestions around gun control include complete elimination of guns as your post implies. You can have common sense laws that still include hunters, home and rural protection, etc., but which will still significantly reduce the amount of gun crime and gun deaths.

[dgies9156]

I think you are misusing the term "gun control" to imply the elimination of guns. It isn't. If you look through multiple threads on scoop where the issue has been previously discussed, none of the numerous suggestions around gun control include complete elimination of guns as your post implies. You can have common sense laws that still include hunters, home and rural protection, etc., but which will still significantly reduce the amount of gun crime and gun deaths.

Brother T:

"Sensible gun control" is an abstract noun that means what a speaker or listener wants it to mean. I'll concede to you that in Scoop, "sensible gun control" means what I described in my original post -- the elimination of automatic weapons etc., and reasonable limitations on gun shows, interstate transportation of weapons, mandatory training and a host of other initiatives.

Where I disagree with you is the extent to which folks want to limit firearms. There's some at the far end of the "other" political spectrum who clearly want to ban all firearms and who think that all we have to do is legally ban firearms in the United States and our communities will be saved, crime will end and all will be good. They're as ridiculous as the folks at the extreme end of "my" political thought who think we ought to arm everybody and shoot it out in hopes the good will be left standing.

Yeah right.

I challenge you and anyone else to define "sensible" gun control in a way that gets 60 votes in the United States Senate. Hell, we had the Parkland shootings at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High down near Ft. Lauderdale and could not get any kind of meaningful "sensible gun control" through the legislature. And that was before the "evil" Ron DeSantis was elected.

[🏀]

I drove up 41 yesterday from Milwaukee for the first time in a decade, Google preferred the route.

The majority of billboards are porn shops, gun shops and "Pornography leads to human traffcking" presented by the Knights of Columbus. Wild place.

[4everwarriors]

How many stops did ya make along da way, hey?

[MUBurrow]

Brother T:
...
Where I disagree with you is the extent to which folks want to limit firearms. There's some at the far end of the "other" political spectrum who clearly want to ban all firearms and who think that all we have to do is legally ban firearms in the United States and our communities will be saved, crime will end and all will be good. They're as ridiculous as the folks at the extreme end of "my" political thought who think we ought to arm everybody and shoot it out in hopes the good will be left standing.
...

To offer a slightly different angle on this, I am in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment. I realize that is an "extreme" position, but it is because I've come to believe its a necessary step to achieve the Scoop definition of sensible gun control.  I am sick of taking L after L after L on this issue to try and seem reasonable and measured to gun nuts who are disinterested in reasonable compromise.  Meanwhile people are dying in droves in ways that doesn't happen in other countries, and the overton window continues to shift toward a more and more gun-drunk culture. I think the 2A has been manipulated beyond repair and needs to be done away with. Even if the 2A were repealed, I'm not against people keeping their low capacity handguns or hunting rifles or whatever.  But I also don't care enough about people's right to keep those to think its worth staying on the path we're on now.

[tower912]

I am against the repeal of any amendment.  if you repeal one, all can be threatened.   

[MUBurrow]

I am against the repeal of any amendment.  if you repeal one, all can be threatened.

67 Senators and 290 Reps have bad news for you.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Wags, nobody opposes ALL gun laws that is simply false. The current laws are not respected by criminals
 and with repeat offenders being released immediately to reoffend sometimes within hours) many people are arming themselves for protection. What doesn't get reported are the hundreds of times that a crime is thwarted or a bodily harm is averted because someone had a firearm. If you don't want to own a gun fine don't cancel someone else's right .
  Some of Y'all need to read the Federalist Papers for background.

LOL.

Why does the level of gun violence and mass shootings that occur in America not happen in any other developed nation?  Just so strange that I can’t seem to get an answer to this question from the “laws are not respected by criminals” group.

And to be clear, I’m not for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Gun violence is a multi-faceted, complex issue. But the “criminals don’t respect laws” take is just so lazy it’s hard to comprehend.

And if someone believes that our gun safety laws (or lack thereof), the proliferation of guns in this country and the culture that comes with it don’t have any impact on gun violence in America, they really should remove their heads from their asses before they suffocate.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/countries-show-us-americas-gun-violence-epidemic/story?id=80495637

https://www.thetrace.org/2021/10/why-more-shootings-in-america-gun-violence-data-research/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

[MU82]

Brother T:

"Sensible gun control" is an abstract noun that means what a speaker or listener wants it to mean. I'll concede to you that in Scoop, "sensible gun control" means what I described in my original post -- the elimination of automatic weapons etc., and reasonable limitations on gun shows, interstate transportation of weapons, mandatory training and a host of other initiatives.

Where I disagree with you is the extent to which folks want to limit firearms. There's some at the far end of the "other" political spectrum who clearly want to ban all firearms and who think that all we have to do is legally ban firearms in the United States and our communities will be saved, crime will end and all will be good. They're as ridiculous as the folks at the extreme end of "my" political thought who think we ought to arm everybody and shoot it out in hopes the good will be left standing.

Yeah right.

I challenge you and anyone else to define "sensible" gun control in a way that gets 60 votes in the United States Senate. Hell, we had the Parkland shootings at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High down near Ft. Lauderdale and could not get any kind of meaningful "sensible gun control" through the legislature. And that was before the "evil" Ron DeSantis was elected.

There have been MANY discussions on Scoop over the years in which even most of the farthest left folks never suggested taking away all guns.

As an independent who leans left on social issues and center on financial issues, I'd be content with passing laws that the vast majority of Americans consider "sensible," for example: requiring universal background checks; closing the gun-show loophole; preventing people with mental illnesses from buying or owning guns; banning high-capacity ammo magazines. All of those measures have wide bipartisan support according to numerous polls -- I'm talking 65% to 90%.

Instead, what we've gotten over the last several years have been looser gun laws. 21 states now do not require permits for the open or concealed carry of guns. Many states now let people take guns into bars -- I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

We have some very powerful lobbies in this country, led by the NRA, who make it difficult for any sensible gun legislation to be passed. In the aftermath of the Parkland shootings in your state, the then-president actually suggested: "Take the guns first, go through due process second.” His vice president and several other politicians from his party nearly had a heart attack on the spot, and the NRA immediately stepped in to scold the then-president, who quickly reversed course lest he turn off the GOP's golden spigot.

So yes, there are "sensible" laws that could be enacted that have significant nationwide support across the political spectrum, and quite a few are even widely supported by Republicans ... but you're probably right that getting even a couple of GOP senators to sign on won't happen -- even though a majority of their constituents want these laws.

The last paragraph of your previous post made me laugh out loud. I liked it so much I decided to make it my signature, so thanks for that!

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Brother T:

"Sensible gun control" is an abstract noun that means what a speaker or listener wants it to mean. I'll concede to you that in Scoop, "sensible gun control" means what I described in my original post -- the elimination of automatic weapons etc., and reasonable limitations on gun shows, interstate transportation of weapons, mandatory training and a host of other initiatives.

Where I disagree with you is the extent to which folks want to limit firearms. There's some at the far end of the "other" political spectrum who clearly want to ban all firearms and who think that all we have to do is legally ban firearms in the United States and our communities will be saved, crime will end and all will be good. They're as ridiculous as the folks at the extreme end of "my" political thought who think we ought to arm everybody and shoot it out in hopes the good will be left standing.

Yeah right.

I challenge you and anyone else to define "sensible" gun control in a way that gets 60 votes in the United States Senate. Hell, we had the Parkland shootings at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High down near Ft. Lauderdale and could not get any kind of meaningful "sensible gun control" through the legislature. And that was before the "evil" Ron DeSantis was elected.

I am sure there is a sliver on the far left espousing complete ban on guns. However, it is just that, a sliver, and given where we are with gun culture in this country it isn't even worth considering their solutions as they are not viable and only detract from more sensible solutions.

The problem isn't finding 60 Senators, the problem is finding even a single GOP Senator, much less 10, who will vote for even the mildest gun reform. You would need to have ~65 Democratic Senators (because their will always be your handful of Manchins), while also having the House and the White House, to get anything done. Even after the massacre in Las Vegas the GOP refused to vote to ban bump stocks, which one would have thought would qualify sensible gun control, and they were banned only by executive order.

So, I challenge you define "sensible" gun control that gets ANY GOP support.

[Pakuni]

Wags, nobody opposes ALL gun laws that is simply false. The current laws are not respected by criminals
 and with repeat offenders being released immediately to reoffend sometimes within hours) many people are arming themselves for protection. What doesn't get reported are the hundreds of times that a crime is thwarted or a bodily harm is averted because someone had a firearm. If you don't want to own a gun fine don't cancel someone else's right .
  Some of Y'all need to read the Federalist Papers for background.

The number of instances in which a gun is used to thwart a crime are tiny, and, as study after study has shown, a firearm owned for "protection" is far more likely to be used against yourself or a member of your household than it is in self-defense.
And rather than serving as protection, the presence of a gun is more likely to escalate than de-escalate the violence in any confrontation.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Pakuni that is simply not true. Crimes deterred because of self defense are underreported by the media.
The same media that cried "Russian Collusion" for 5 years and regarding a candidate destroying supoenaed
information and a son's laptop ....Crickets. you are fed what they want you to hear. It doesn't fit their agenda.
The existing laws are simply not enforced

[Hards Alumni]

Pakuni that is simply not true. Crimes deterred because of self defense are underreported by the media.
The same media that cried "Russian Collusion" for 5 years and regarding a candidate destroying supoenaed
information and a son's laptop ....Crickets. you are fed what they want you to hear. It doesn't fit their agenda.
The existing laws are simply not enforced

LOL

[WellsstreetWanderer]

"There is no greater barrier to understanding than  the assumption that the standpoint we happen to
 occupy is universal"

  Nietzche

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The number of instances in which a gun is used to thwart a crime are tiny, and, as study after study has shown, a firearm owned for "protection" is far more likely to be used against yourself or a member of your household than it is in self-defense.
And rather than serving as protection, the presence of a gun is more likely to escalate than de-escalate the violence in any confrontation.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Try as you might, they are impervious to facts

[Pakuni]

Pakuni that is simply not true. Crimes deterred because of self defense are underreported by the media.
The same media that cried "Russian Collusion" for 5 years and regarding a candidate destroying supoenaed
information and a son's laptop ....Crickets. you are fed what they want you to hear. It doesn't fit their agenda.
The existing laws are simply not enforced

OK, Alex. Now tell us about the gay frogs.
Love the guys who, when presented with data that contradicts their world view, are only capable of going full-on conspiracy theory and off-topic ramblings.

[Hards Alumni]

"There is no greater barrier to understanding than  the assumption that the standpoint we happen to
 occupy is universal"

  Nietzche

I didn't think you could top your previous post, but here we are.