Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The root of the problem varies from racism, jealousy (about relationships/flings), to drugs, bullying, lack of direction, poor education, etc. Find the solution to those problems and your level of homicides (and even school brawls) around the world will drop immensely, methinks.

@RockandRoll: What is your stance on gun laws in America? Do you think all guns should be outlawed for regular civilians? Do you support the use of hunting rifles? (apologies if you've answered this before).

I appreciate the questions. I might address both paragraphs with one response. I'm of the belief that you solve a great deal of problems when you solve what tends to be the fundamental issue, which is class. So you note in your first paragraph that it is necessary to "Find the solution to the problems" of racism, jealousy, drugs, bulling, lack of direction, education (and I would add alienation and lack of proper health care) and it seems to me that the root problem is class. This is why I ultimately find the gun control issue to be somewhat of a diversion (though occasionally, like in the wake of this tragedy, an important diversion) from the more important issue of class. So it seems to me that that issue needs to addressed above all else because otherwise you run the risk of getting into a useless New England vs. Texas debate or urban vs. rural debate. That being said, I do not accept the pro-gun arguments - guns neither make the population safer, nor do they protect the population from possible state tyranny. It seems to me that the UK gun policy offers a pretty good model for specifically targeting gun-related homicides but if you're going to solve the other problems that you mentioned and the problem of crime in general, then you're going to have to target the issue of class and it is telling that you simply don't get that argument being presented at all from either the hawk or dove camp in the US.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I'll also say this: Teachers think of these resource officers as a blessing for basically one reason alone: they are trained and equipped to break up fights (I've witnessed fights in school hallways where blood was in pools across the floor - and our school was one of the least violent in the area ). Teachers are afraid to break up fights lest it turn into a lawsuit (happened to a friend of mine who is a teacher), they're also afraid for their lives (I've seen teachers being picked up and slammed into walls by fellow students during fights). Thus they are more at ease knowing there's a resource officer is standing by to quickly diffuse any fight. It's sad it has to be this way, but it is.

I hate seeing more policing and more government spending, so it is tragic when I feel more policing and more spending is necessary to keep our schools safe.

The root of the problem varies from racism, jealousy (about relationships/flings), to drugs, bullying, lack of direction, poor education, etc. Find the solution to those problems and your level of homicides (and even school brawls) around the world will drop immensely, methinks.

Honestly, I'd just let the morons fight and destroy each other. If they agree on it, what's the problem?

Maybe it's time we leave the sociopaths alone to do the same....

[donald]

If a behavior  can be reduced in termS of frequency and intensity the result is sometimes considered a success.  This in lieu of perfection.   If we have a society where we have the right to bear arms, how do we achieve a realistic goal of reducing mass murder in public places?     Sadly, that is probably the best we can expect to achieve in a free society where the people are in agreement that they will continue to own guns.

How do we reduce the frequency and iintensity of  horrific occurances such as what we have been seeing?

What are the top 3 things we,as a society could do immediately that would be acceptable to all?  ( lets say we agree that arming everyone with M16'sand grenades is not the answer)

[Dunderhead]

Nothing. The ideological opponents of any party or political figure that proposes anything whatsoever will immediately decry whatever was proposed, no matter what it was, and whip the masses into a frenzy over it. Agreement is impossible because agreement is based in understanding and respect, and it's easier to to be confrontational and dismissive than it is to listen to what anyone has to say.

[Bean Bag]

What are the top 3 things we,as a society could do immediately that would be acceptable to all?  ( lets say we agree that arming everyone with M16'sand grenades is not the answer)

Interesting game.  I don't think anyone will ever agree on anything though.  But... I have an idea...

May I introduce something else?  Let's pretend that it's not America "today" but America circa 1800.  Let's pretend it's not even Americans that we're trying to "fix" with some new gun laws.  Sh*t, let's pretend it's the Indians.  Native Americans!

Yeah... what should we do guys!?  Should we disarm the Native Americans?  Yeah!  What should we take away?  Bows?  Arrows?  Hatchets?  What can we all agree on -- as a society -- IMMEDIATELY -- that would be acceptable to all, to deal with the Native Americans?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Unlike the above posters, I do believe that there is a possibility for some kind of real compromise that will foster real material results – history demonstrates this. But I will admit that it is a daunting task, given that one has to first cut through an enormous amount of ideological obfuscation. That is not to say that the people that you encounter in day-to-day life are being purposefully disingenuous, in fact quite the contrary. But, rather, they are heavily caught up in a system of deception and indoctrination that functions largely to misinform the population and as long as the public is misinformed it is difficult to imagine that there could ever be a reasonable debate that has productive results.

Keep in mind that in the United States, 90% of the media that the people receive is controlled by six corporations. The result, of course, is a very narrow spectrum of the kind of opinion, information, and point of view expressed. This is not just because of the consolidated nature of the media – though, that’s certainly a major factor – but also due to just who are the small amount of people that control information and public knowledge. Because they are all major corporations, the already narrow information that the public receives all largely expresses the likewise narrow point of view of both the cultural and political elite. The ideology at work in media ownership is the same ideology that controls the country’s investments, production, distribution and for the most part, staff the major executive positions in the government, since it is impossible to gain an important role in a major election without an enormous amount of capital and that typically comes from the same corporate power that own the media. In effect, the elite members of society who design day-to-day existence in their own favour, also dominate in giving the public most of the information that informs the way they understand the country, the things that it does, and what their place is in it.  Moreover, the central market for the media is not the public – the media is largely unaccountable to them. Rather, the market is mostly advertisers, which means their audience is other companies.

The results of this are staggering. A recent study done on ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,” CBS’ “Face the Nation, and “Fox News Sunday” showed the following:

Of one-on-one interviews, 70 percent of partisan-affiliated guests were Republican. Those guests were overwhelmingly male (86 percent) and white (92 percent).
The broader roundtable segments weren’t much more diverse: 62 percent of partisan-affiliated guests were Republican. More broadly, guests classified as either Republican or conservative far outnumbered Democrats or progressives, 282 to 164. The roundtables were 71 percent male and 85 percent white.
U.S. government sources — current officials, former lawmakers, political candidates, party-affiliated political operatives and campaign advisers — dominated the Sunday shows overall (47 percent of appearances). Following closely behind were journalists (43 percent), most of whom were middle-of-the-road Beltway political reporters.

While this report was done specifically on the Sunday shows, the results naturally generalize and demonstrate that the information given typically reflects a particular segment of the population – namely the ownership class.

What happens as a result is that the public is by and large convinced (because they are not given any other information) that the needs of the ownership class match their own needs. This is why the public is often misguided into believing that, say, Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11 in the days leading up to the US attack on Iraq; or, that it is debatable whether or not climate change is a human responsibility, which happens to now be the standard thought once the Information Council on the Environment (a lobby group mostly made up of corporate representatives from the oil and steel industries) made it their goal to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.” It’s why some people (albeit a very small contingent) believed in the outrageous claims regarding health care and death panels. People believe these things because it is so difficult to access information that reflects reality, rather than simply the interests of an obscenely small percentage of the population.

And the same can be said for the current conversation on gun control. Remember that the NRA is largely just the mouthpiece for the firearms industry, which is where about 3/4ths of their funding comes from. They may say a lot of nonsense about protecting 2nd Amendment rights, but of course, we know that’s a lot of nonsense, particularly when the verge on impinging on 1st Amendment rights in order to protect the needs of their financial backers. So the NRA largely and quite disingenuously spreads a lot of misinformation around and they carry a lot of weight and are treated quite seriously by the mainstream media, though the major cultural and political elite are not too concerned with the issue so here there is allowed some critique.

Now I think that ultimately there is an area that people can begin to find some common ground. So, for example, for the vast swaths of the public who are relentlessly indoctrinated by the media, they nevertheless have very real criticisms that ought to be taken seriously. Underneath the gloss of the grossly inaccurate and staggeringly uninformed criticisms that one often sees coming from the public, is a very real grievance that should be taken seriously because it, in fact, comes from a very sensible place. Take, for just one example, taxation. Now people despise the idea of taxation and there are compelling arguments to be made for despising them.

The American people do not need to be taxed the way that they are – and they could very well make the kind of demands that would substantially reduce taxes or at least alter in a very significant and crucial way what they are paying taxes for. Largely, the American public pays for a bloated military, as the US spends as much as the rest of the world combined on their military. As far back as the mid-90s, only 30% of the population knew that military was the largest item in the budget, with most believing it was foreign aid. In actual fact, US foreign aid is paltry in comparison to other countries – per capita. And, furthermore, what money the country does spend on foreign aid typically goes to assist countries in their oppression of a population. The US taxpayer also pays more for health care than any person in any other industrialized country, despite the fact that in those country every citizen is entitled to health care.

And finally, perhaps most strikingly, the United States has recorded unparalleled wealth yet has an enormous disparity between the rick and the poor. In fact, in recent history, studies showed that there were two areas of the world where hunger was increasing – Sub-Saharan Africa and the United States. That’s a remarkable achievement in depravity but what’s worse is the fact that the public has largely subsidized the ownership class by providing a social welfare net that helped develop the economy as we know it. Now, these are all justifiable arguments against the system of taxation – but none of them can be made because to change any of those things would be to undermine the authority of the elite interests who run the country. Therefore it becomes necessary to divert the conversation towards something less harmful – like, the government has too much control, that they want to give away everything you work for, and they’re going to come after you with a gun if you don’t pay your taxes and this all must mean that the government is evil, and so forth. I mean, the fact that this is the argument that people make about taxation is a real testament to the strength of ideological control. After all, remember that it is in the interests of the corprate world that the public is kept largely suspicious of government because it is through using the instruments of government that people can actually attain some genuine form of liberation. But that’s not supposed to happen, since that means undercutting the power of corporate control.

But it makes sense why this happens – people do things right – they live right, do all the right things and yet don’t get what is promised them. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity where if you work hard enough you get to enjoy the spoils but in reality that doesn’t happen as wages stagnate and services decline and people want answers to the very real and serious problems that are affecting their lives. However, as it turns out the only place that gives them answers are the central factor in creating these problems. So people end up receiving crazy answers but they don’t hear any others. So, they think that it’s Obama’s socialism, or foreigners taking jobs, or whatever the scapegoat is that prevents them from seeing what the real problems are, in a time honored tradition. And it’s not their fault for believing it since they’re probably working too hard to be able to have the kind of access to resources and information that might allow them to see through the deceit that informs their lives.

Is there a common ground to be found on this gun issue? Absolutely – I think there’s a rational, legitimate common ground to be found on any issue but people have to know what the actual options are, and why these are the options. This in itself, though, can be a difficult task. When people have been used to receiving information that reflects only a very narrow spectrum of ideas (and a difference of opinion is already built into that narrow spectrum, such as Democrats vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative) then their immediate reaction when confronted with a point of view that exists outside of that spectrum is that it must be wrong, since it violates the very standard of what considered to be legitimate opinion. So, for example, a card-carrying Republican may hate what a Democrat says and may consider it to be full of lies, but at least they expect to hear it and in many ways hold the Democrat position to be so legitimate that they often craft their own beliefs in opposition to it (and the same holds true if you switch “Democrat” and “Republican” in this sentence). However present a point of view that falls outside of the ones given  by mainstream media and you might as well be from planet Mars. Your views are so illegitimate that even the most vulgar and deceitful response to it can be praised and deemed acceptable since any opposition to the illegitimate argument must be, by its very nature, correct. So the task is extremely difficult but I believe do-able and the stakes are so large that I believe it is also necessary.

Happy New Year.

[Bean Bag]

What I find interesting...    ... is that the NRA hasn't become the target.  Everyone's blaming this crazy guy or video games or movies... but no one is blaming the NRA.  WTF!  They're the ones who put guns in the hands of madmen, not video games.  Not hollywood.  How does a movie put a gun in your hand?  Exactly.  Not only that... but get this:  that school, as is every school in the country, was a gun-free zone.  Hello?  Gun?  Free?  Who talks about guns -- the NRA.  And who always talks about "freedom" and being "free" -- the right-wingers.  Exactly.  Gun-free zones built by freedom spewing right-wingers -- all powered by Corporations.  Wake up people.

Of course the NRA and the Right Wing is blaming mental illness.  Don't be fooled.  Of course this person wasn't mentally healthy.  That's what they want!  Mental health is a simple diversion.  Brains don't kill people, last time I checked anyway.  How can a thought lead to killing anybody?  It doesn't.  Studies have proven this time and time again.  It's the gun.  Only guns and the NRA and the right-wing corporations kill people -- who if anything, put the thought in his head!  Not movies or video games.  For example... NBC reported that George Zimmerman was a "white Hispanic."  Remember that?  He was not an Hispanic -- but a white Hispanic.  I know the media is owned by evil corporations, but they're right about this because it's exposing what's really going on.  White Hispanic simply means white racism.  It was white racism, folks which is synonymous with what?  That's right -- the Right Wing.  They're the killers, America.  I mean, why are they called the NRA anyway?  The first letter is "N."  N-word?  Hello?  Why is no one looking at that?

We can't have an honest debate in this country until we all agree on this.  Let's start negotiating from there.

Just like blaming "mental health" (pfft, yeah right!) they also blame "individuals."  Seriously...WTF!?  This is the most egregious attack yet.  Individuals?  That doesn't make any sense.  Think about it.  This act was not done by an individual or mental illness.  He didn't make the gun.  A corporation made the gun.  Am I wrong?  No!  It's IMPOSSIBLE for ANY individual to do this.  It's totally the NRA.  And the 2nd Amendment.  It's right there in the Constitution people!!!!!!  The 2nd Amendment TELLS YOU TO OWN A GUN.  Hello?  What am I missing here?  Nothing.  And that's what nobody is talking about.  The right to have a gun -- the "right."  It's not a "left" to have a gun.  But a right.  Right wing.  Someone slap me 5!



Ok... the only question is why.  Why are white racists and corporations doing this?  Well if you understand anything... you'd know that the right-wing capitalists want guns because they want everyone to get shot.  It's simple.  It's simple math.  Corporations long ago figured out that they CANNOT take over the world if people are "unarmed" and defenseless.  Because, stupid... if they're unarmed they rely on Government.  And government is the only thing that protects people.  Because the Government is the only thing that can stop corporations.  Come on people!!!

Corporations long ago figured this out.  The only way they could truly take over the world was to actually arm the people they wanted to control.  I know it sounds ironic... but it's true.  Studies.  And they use their corporations like Wal-mart (which sells the guns) to deliver them.  And they use their media to tell people about the Constitution, which tells you to own a gun.  And that's how they did it -- people get all armed up, thinking it's their right to do so!  And once people are all armed up with guns and ammo -- the corporations knew that they would then start to get all shot.  By themselves.  The people will take themselves out!!  It's devilishly brilliant but makes total sense if you do the research.

There's no debating anything I said.  Studies and research and intelligence has locked that down.  The only thing left to do is -- as a society -- let's figure out how to stop them.  We must start with disarming the people -- slowly and overtime, so they don't get suspicious.  And then, as a society, we can collectively figure out how to dismantle the military industrial complex and their bosses at the Corporation headquarters, deep underground.  Of course, once disarmed, the stupid overfed populace will naturally rely on the Police state and their Government superiors for protection -- which is good and natural.  And with them relying on us intelligent superiors, we can tell them where and when to shop... thus taking the power away from corporations.

But we'll need to take over foxnews.  Because FoxNews still reports a fair amount of the right-wing corporate garbage... and that's not good.  We'll want ONE MEDIA, in-line with the Government.  So... we'll have to strong arm advertisers, who own the media, to get them to report what we want.  If another Glenn Beck pops up... put the pressure on their corporate sponsors.  If that doesn't work... use our existing media to ridicule them.  We must stop the corporations and their evil plan to take over the world by arming people with guns.  Let's disarm people, empower Government and buyout all the corporations like Fidel Castro so we can stop global warming by ending our dependency on fossil fuels so people can stop getting wealthy and using air conditioning and no longer have access to cheap, affordable products (like light bulbs) made by evil corporations so we can get back to nature and living like we did 500 years ago, when the King and his Government men ruled over all the muddy serfs who had no air conditioning and SUVs and had to poop in the street --- Let's do it!  Let's live just like it was 1199!!  http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_warming-0/

Did I say too much?  Is everyone still with me?  Great... let's regroup in 8 days.  Excelsior!

[Bean Bag]

Now this man's absolutely brilliant right here....  "No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer..." proclaimed the gigantic, genius Andrew Cuomo.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/09/cuomos-state-of-the-state-to-include-gun-control/

I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment isn't about "hunting deer" you inbred tool!!!    Hell, maybe someone does need ten bullets to kill a deer!  Dick Cheney missed a few times!   But seriously... how sad is this.  It's not for "huntin'" you douchebag!  It's for protection against rapists, murderers, robbers, tyrants and you know... self-protection!  Duuuuh.  Hunting deer... good grief.  Is this guy for real?

He's a Governor by the way.  Yeah.  How about that, New York.  Now...you would think... just maybe (??) "assume" that someone elected to represent the citizens of an entire state would understand how to read.  Right?  No?  But he should know the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, correct?  It is the basis for our entire country's laws.  I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment doesn't talk about hunting.  At all.    I'm sure he's heard of it... I mean, he is a Governor.  Hey... wait.  Perhaps he's not a "governor" for real... maybe it's just a stage name.  The Governor!  Like a pro-wrestler.

so... just who is Andrew Cuomo? Well... let's play!  Here's all the conceivable options...

A:  Mentally challenged man with access to TV cameras
B:  Pro Wrestler
C:  A tyrant, statist and hypocrite.  (I'm sure HE gets keep his armed guards!  What an a55hole!)

I vote A and C.

[Bean Bag]

EDIT:  Oh wait... "The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..."  It must mean the arms of bear.  Sorry.  You have the right to keep (something... it's not clear what you have the right to "keep") AND the right to "bear arms."  My bad.  Cuomo is a genius.

[Jason]

With sociopaths like Andrew Cuomo and Michael Bloomberg living in the same fucking state...New York is irremediably f***ed.

[hypehat]

Yeah...if you want a civil war, go ahead and push for the repeal of the Second Amendment. See how far you get.

You are Alex Jones and I claim my £5

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

EDIT:  Oh wait... "The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed..."  It must mean the arms of bear.  Sorry.  You have the right to keep (something... it's not clear what you have the right to "keep") AND the right to "bear arms."  My bad.  Cuomo is a genius.

I vote for the right to arm bears!

[Jason]

Yeah...if you want a civil war, go ahead and push for the repeal of the Second Amendment. See how far you get.

You are Alex Jones and I claim my £5

Alex Jones is a fringe conspiracy theorist...take your John Bull paper elsewhere.

[Bean Bag]

I vote for the right to arm bears!

dammit... do you know how hard I just worked to talk Governor Cuomo outta arming deer?

[hypehat]

I find it weird that neither you nor hypehat are from America yet have so much to say about it.

If there was a British politics thread, I'd spend most of my time on that! But iirc I'm the only Britisher involved in these discussions and it would just be TRBB finding various ways to work 'John Bull' into tired zings.

[Mike's Beard]

Yeah...if you want a civil war, go ahead and push for the repeal of the Second Amendment. See how far you get.

You are Alex Jones and I claim my £5

Actually it would be the most one sided civil war in history, as one side would not be carrying any guns.  

[hypehat]

Yeah...if you want a civil war, go ahead and push for the repeal of the Second Amendment. See how far you get.

You are Alex Jones and I claim my £5

Actually it would be the most one sided civil war in history, as one side would not be carrying any guns.  

I do love this line of argument - "Oh, of course we don't use guns expressly to kill people! We use them to feel safe in our homes, as self defence against criminals, go hunting, etc, certainly not to murder people. Unless you try and take them away. Then we'll murder you."

[Bean Bag]

I do love this line of argument - "Oh, of course we don't use guns expressly to kill people! We use them to feel safe in our homes, as self defence against criminals, go hunting, etc, certainly not to murder people. Unless you try and take them away. Then we'll murder you."

Huh?  Self-defense is the act of over-powering your assailant.  It's not being the assailant.

[hypehat]

I do love this line of argument - "Oh, of course we don't use guns expressly to kill people! We use them to feel safe in our homes, as self defence against criminals, go hunting, etc, certainly not to murder people. Unless you try and take them away. Then we'll murder you."

Huh?  Self-defense is the act of over-powering your assailant.  It's not being the assailant.

If you advocate gun rights, your main line of defence should not be 'If you try and take my guns away the gun owning public of America will kill you'. It's kind of admitting you want to kill people. Which, as we all know, is a very reasonable argument and doesn't sound insane.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I do love this line of argument - "Oh, of course we don't use guns expressly to kill people! We use them to feel safe in our homes, as self defence against criminals, go hunting, etc, certainly not to murder people. Unless you try and take them away. Then we'll murder you."

Huh?  Self-defense is the act of over-powering your assailant.  It's not being the assailant.

If you advocate gun rights, your main line of defence should not be 'If you try and take my guns away the gun owning public of America will kill you'. It's kind of admitting you want to kill people. Which, as we all know, is a very reasonable argument and doesn't sound insane.

Haha - not only insane but stupidly insane. To act as if even a well-armed public could defeat the United States after it goes (or as it is going) fully tyannical is so beyond rationality and is so far outside reality, it is difficult to know whether one should react to the argument with laughter or tears.

[SMiLE Brian]

I do love this line of argument - "Oh, of course we don't use guns expressly to kill people! We use them to feel safe in our homes, as self defence against criminals, go hunting, etc, certainly not to murder people. Unless you try and take them away. Then we'll murder you."

Huh?  Self-defense is the act of over-powering your assailant.  It's not being the assailant.

If you advocate gun rights, your main line of defence should not be 'If you try and take my guns away the gun owning public of America will kill you'. It's kind of admitting you want to kill people. Which, as we all know, is a very reasonable argument and doesn't sound insane.

Haha - not only insane but stupidly insane. To act as if even a well-armed public could defeat the United States after it goes (or as it is going) fully tyannical is so beyond rationality and is so far outside reality, it is difficult to know whether one should react to the argument with laughter or tears.

The modern military has tanks, cannons, planes, and helicopters to enforce the laws of the land. The American revolution wasn't solely won by a militia of the people either, the Americans had to form a real army and have the military help of nations like France.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I do love this line of argument - "Oh, of course we don't use guns expressly to kill people! We use them to feel safe in our homes, as self defence against criminals, go hunting, etc, certainly not to murder people. Unless you try and take them away. Then we'll murder you."

Huh?  Self-defense is the act of over-powering your assailant.  It's not being the assailant.

If you advocate gun rights, your main line of defence should not be 'If you try and take my guns away the gun owning public of America will kill you'. It's kind of admitting you want to kill people. Which, as we all know, is a very reasonable argument and doesn't sound insane.

Haha - not only insane but stupidly insane. To act as if even a well-armed public could defeat the United States after it goes (or as it is going) fully tyannical is so beyond rationality and is so far outside reality, it is difficult to know whether one should react to the argument with laughter or tears.

The modern military has tanks, cannons, planes, and helicopters to enforce the laws of the land. The American revolution wasn't solely won by a militia of the people either, the Americans had to form a real army and have the military help of nations like France.

Exactly. And don't forget about nuclear weapons. There's nothing a well-armed public could do to stop the power of the United States government if they wanted to tyrannize the public that way. But of course, this isn't the third world and power does not operate that way in high-tech countries. The powerful people who run the country know that the public can be largely subordinated even with arms because the wealthy elite typically control the population and indoctrinate them. This isn't the 1700s - the way that people are rendered powerless has changed entirely. And the fact that people are led to believe that guns will protect them from the tyranny of the state is only further proof of just how powerless people have become as a result of a system of indoctrination.

[rab2591]

Sam Harris, outspoken atheist whose books deal with topics from free will to the ridiculousness of religion, wrote a good FAQ the other day on his views of guns in America: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence

"Many readers do not seem to understand how difficult it would be for the U.S. to follow the example of the U.K. or Australia, both of which stiffened their gun laws in response to atrocities similar to Newtown. Neither the U.K. nor Australia had anything like the level of gun ownership—or the political, legal, and historical commitment to it—that we have in the U.S. And the results of their own experiments with stricter laws have been ambiguous.

The murder rate in the U.S. has fallen by 50 percent in the last twenty years—so it is moving in the right direction despite the omnipresence of guns. It remains extremely high when compared to rates elsewhere in the developed world, of course. And there seems little doubt that access to guns has a lot to do with this. The pressing question, however, is not how we can get rid of these guns—because the barriers to doing so seem insuperable. The question is what should we do in light of the fact that dangerous people are guaranteed to have access to firearms in the U.S. for the foreseeable future."

Even if all the good citizens turned their guns in, the criminals sure as hell wouldn't follow suit (and it's irrational and ignorant to think they would).

Like I said before, I am for stricter background checks, limits on mags, etc...but don't take away my right to defend myself against some gang trying to break into my house (which happened to me as a kid - part of the reason why I am pro-gun).

For me, it's not about my right to fight back against a tyrannical government (and as has been stated above, is a preposterous thought), it's about my right to sleep soundly at night.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The murder rate in the U.S. has fallen by 50 percent in the last twenty years—so it is moving in the right direction despite the omnipresence of guns. It remains extremely high when compared to rates elsewhere in the developed world, of course. And there seems little doubt that access to guns has a lot to do with this.

I particularly like here how the last two sentences nullify the first one.

Like I said before, I am for stricter background checks, limits on mags, etc...but don't take away my right to defend myself against some gang trying to break into my house (which happened to me as a kid - part of the reason why I am pro-gun).

For me, it's not about my right to fight back against a tyrannical government (and as has been stated above, is a preposterous thought), it's about my right to sleep soundly at night.

But that, of course, is not what guns are typically used for. Guns, I think, typically give one the illusion of self-defense which is probably a comfortable illusion in a country where so many people have guns. Again, I refer you to the recent research findings which illustrated that many people who claim to have used guns in self defense pull them out in illegal and undesirable situations, and guns in a home are more likely to be used to intimidate family members than to defend against intruders.

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

EDIT: Found the right link. The initial one I gave was incorrect.

It seems to me that in just about every scenario, then, access to guns works to threaten one's security rather than reinforce it. And I think it is ultimately extremely unfair tat 80+ people are dying per day just so you can live out some fantasy that you are safer when in reality you are more than likely reinforcing a danger to your life.

[SMiLE Brian]

Sam Harris, outspoken atheist whose books deal with topics from free will to the ridiculousness of religion, wrote a good FAQ the other day on his views of guns in America: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence

"Many readers do not seem to understand how difficult it would be for the U.S. to follow the example of the U.K. or Australia, both of which stiffened their gun laws in response to atrocities similar to Newtown. Neither the U.K. nor Australia had anything like the level of gun ownership—or the political, legal, and historical commitment to it—that we have in the U.S. And the results of their own experiments with stricter laws have been ambiguous.

The murder rate in the U.S. has fallen by 50 percent in the last twenty years—so it is moving in the right direction despite the omnipresence of guns. It remains extremely high when compared to rates elsewhere in the developed world, of course. And there seems little doubt that access to guns has a lot to do with this. The pressing question, however, is not how we can get rid of these guns—because the barriers to doing so seem insuperable. The question is what should we do in light of the fact that dangerous people are guaranteed to have access to firearms in the U.S. for the foreseeable future."

Even if all the good citizens turned their guns in, the criminals sure as hell wouldn't follow suit (and it's irrational and ignorant to think they would).

Like I said before, I am for stricter background checks, limits on mags, etc...but don't take away my right to defend myself against some gang trying to break into my house (which happened to me as a kid - part of the reason why I am pro-gun).

For me, it's not about my right to fight back against a tyrannical government (and as has been stated above, is a preposterous thought), it's about my right to sleep soundly at night.

Good points about defense, sounds like you had a scary break-in.   The gun store near my house has so many cool surplus military bolt action rifles gathering dust because the assault rifles have been selling like hot cakes since sandy hook.