Mike Lester for August 28, 2015

We had a murder done with a barbecue fork here in town, so obviously, barbecue forks are dangerous, but guns never harmed anyone, and the next mass killing will be done with a barbecue fork, right?

It is just a simple statement: Killing with guns is easier than with a fork/knife/steel rod or anything else that is as transportable. And it is nearly as easy to get for everyone.

So why don t go the australian way? Hard laws to get a gun and forbid everything semi and full automatic. They took a lot of money to buy them back from the owners, but it worked. Maybe in the shock of the massacre at that time in Port Arthur. Of course in US it would get even more expensive, because of the silly amount of guns.

And don t come with “But the criminals have guns …..”The criminals have guns, because they don t have to be criminal to get one. Look at the other countries. In countries with strong gun laws only few criminals have enough criminal energy to get a gun. And that way there is much less risk to get shot by criminals.

The other problem is that there are so many guns around that it would take decades

Cars kill too, especially when driven by drunk drivers. Passing laws on that has had little effect, so we need more drunk drivers & more guns in the hands of mentally unstable people.

Why not start with something reasonable? Real background checks for all buyers and a simple license procedure for would be owner that give them a little training on legal liability, safety and use? We do that in most other activities that present a potential hazard to the public.

sigh You guys. First, the biggest strawman: drunk driving deaths. What the chart doesn’t show you is the improved safety features since the 80’s. Instead of having a driver’s-side only airbag, they have like… 80 airbags now (yes, I’m exaggerating). ABS instead of standard brakes. Better headlights to provide better awareness. Etc. You can’t use a chart like that, which exists within a microcosm, and expect it to back up your argument that tougher enforcement laws work. I’m not saying the chart isn’t valid, I’m simply saying you’re failing to causally and completely link the two.Secondly, yes… firearms (especially semi-automatic) are capable of larger volume of death. But you are latching onto specific and individual headlines. While these are tragic events, and the families are torn apart as the result of a deranged madman, they are a statistical blip on the radar. In 2013, there were 14,196 murders we knew about. In that same year, 78 of those were mass shootings. 78 out of 14,196. That.s .549% of the total. Given that there were roughly 300 million firearms in the country, that means .000026% of firearms in this country were used for mass shootings. Overreacting much?Yet these murders get the most attention because they involved “scary firearms.” Let’s look at total murders as the result of a firearm. Everyone loves to pick on assault weapons. But in 2013, of those 14k murders, 285 were committed with rifles (those assault weapons are technically rifles). That’s 2% of all homicides by those scary assault rifles. And let’s just live in pretend world and say all 14,000 murders were committed with firearms (which they weren’t), and let’s say it was 1 firearm per death. That’s still .0047% of all firearms in this country were used to commit murder. It would take 212 years for this to breach 1% at that rate. A lot of people are calling for stricter firearm control because they are afraid. But what you are effectively stating is that because 99.995% of all firearm owners are to be punished because because of the actions of .005% of firearm possessors. Do you begin to see why people like me think a buyback (aka unconstitutionally confiscating) program is draconian? Do you see that statistically, stricter firearm controls hurt hundreds of millions of people because of the stupid actions of a handful of people? Law-abiding citizens already adhere to the law, and they already use them as they were intended (self-defense, hunting, collecting). Criminals still won’t care because they will be able to get them from wherever. Here’s something you guys also haven’t connected (or have and ignored it): Australia and Britain are islands. They can have absolute control over what comes and goes on and off the island. We share a border with Mexico, and with that comes the drug cartels. If it’s so easy to slip a person through the border we have, you think it’s HARDER to slip a cache of weapons through? Please. Guns are almost as profitable as drugs. If someone wants to purchase a weapon off the black market , they can. They just need to know where to look. After all, you think all the firearm deaths from gang warfare are from registered and legally purchased firearms?

By the way, my prior post was using the ethical approach of Utilitarianism. Look it up if you don’t know what it is. ;)

All very logical and rational Wraithkin. But gun are designed to be powerful extensions of human intent to do violence. That is their design. Twist and turn all you want with logic, but you can’t evade that reality. And, yes, the ability to do violence as defense is a part of that reality.

The notion of protecting you individual freedoms against government tyranny is silly on the face of it given the power and resources of our modern government to inflict violence with guns to suppress such activity.

what gets lost in these discussions is that guns are a multiplier of emotional intent. These are powerful tools and such power tends to distort the judgement of many, enabling emotional outbursts to become much more deadly and destructive than it would be otherwise.

Handguns are a special case in all of this. They can be more easily concealed, and they are harder to shoot accurately. Both facts argue strongly for removing them from a civilized society. So, yes, I definitely would restrict lawful handgun ownership for the benefit of all concerned. Massive buybacks sound pretty good to me.

So why are drugs illegal? By your logic, we should be able to purchase heroin, meth, cocaine, opium, LSD, pot, etc and use them responsibly as long as a crime is not committed then everything’s good.

“Reasonable limits now would prevent a big loss later.”.So define reasonable limits and how it will suddenly stop all mass murders. Mass murderers don’t need guns to kill multiple people. McVeigh in OK City didn’t need guns. The Boston Marathon bombers didn’t need guns. Al Qaeda didn’t need guns. Pretending the problem will go away because you ban a tool is like hiding your head in the sand. The problem still exists and will continue to happen.

If it were impossible for criminals to get guns—they will always have them, because they are CRIMINALS—then innocent, peace-loving people would not need them.

Concealed carry permit, I’m a “registered” gun owner, and they haven’t come after me, or my weapons. No problem and I keep tight control on my firearms, and don’t do illicit sales, it keeps guns out of “criminals” hands.

In actuality, there are only about 300 actual different “gun laws” in the U.S., not the thousans the NRA would have us believe. Likewise owning guns doesn’t prevent anywhere close to the number of crimes the NRA claims, but don’t let facts influence you.

You are right, this was clearly a hate crime.The media has covered the the fact that the perp felt persecuted because he black and gay. He was clearly crazy and dangerous, that is why he could not hold on to a job. He hated his father who was a successful athlete and educator. We know all of this because the media has covered it.Do you want the corpse of the perpetrator to be given a longer sentence?

You people are really pathetic.

Just remember the criminals will always be able to get guns, the Obama Justice Department will sell them to the criminals.

And who would those groups be? Most firearm owners agree on most things, and there wouldn’t be enough bile and hatred to cause them on each other.

I think you’ve been confused by the media. The right has no love for Mr. Putin, that would be the media fawning over the putz.

Mr. Barnard, families are broken up by specific cultural mindsets LONG before they get a chance to be broken up by so called victim-less crimes..As for paying people enough .. don’t try to raise a family on the income meant for an entry level teenager and you’ll be okay. But expecting people to pay $15 an hour for menial, unskilled, entry level work is less than intelligent and won’t help anyone.