When a hate crime occurs against gays, we talk about homophobia immediately afterwards

[La Lioness Priyanka]

When a hate crimes occurs against a transperson we talk about transphobia immediately afterwards.

When a gang rape happens in Delhi, we talk about endemic misogyny in India immediately afterwards.


So why is it that when a massacre with a gun occurs, if we discuss gun politics suddenly we are politicizing a tragedy or expressing glee about a tragedy?

Isn't the best way to deal with a tragedy, to deal with root causes of said tragedy? Why is this considered some evil form of gloating?


I think it's extremely convenient to label people callous and insensitive to shutdown a debate you don't want to have at any given time. Before, during and after a massacre with a gun.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Bullseye. nt

[malaise]

2. Excellent post

Rec

[Iggo]

3. Guns are more important than people, more important than life.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. definitely. nt

[el_bryanto]

5. There's an element of that

I think the problem is though that there are people who disagree on what should be done about gun control. Everybody here at least kind of agrees on misogyny, homophobia or transphobia; so talking about those issues doesn't get in the way of being upset at the tragedy. When you talk about gun control; people who disagree with you on that issue here at DU feel attacked and thus passion takes over.

Bryant

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. exactly my point. people only object to this to shutdown a debate

that they dont want to have in the first place

[X_Digger]

6. When a gang rape occurs in Delhi, we don't talk about chemical castration for men, either.

Just to make sure we're talking apples to apples.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. yes because restricting guns is exactly like chemical castration.

[X_Digger]

11. Registering penises then? Banning.. umm.. tumescent ones?

I'm having a hard time coming up with analogies that wouldn't get the post hidden, so forgive me for being circumspect.

Hate crime legislation is aimed at those who perpetrate heinous acts based on bias. A proper analogy would be changing offenses related to the use of guns in crime- such as mandatory +5 years penalty if a crime is committed with a gun.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. no, thats not the ONLY proper analagy. we talk about reducing homophobia/transphobia and misogyny

so reducing the actual number of guns/ the fetishizing/normalizing of gun ownership is a similar conversation

either way, you are not answering my actual questions. why is this conversation considered gloating??

[X_Digger]

14. Those relate to changing people's attitudes. Hate crime legislation is about punishment post crime.

Nobody proposes restricting people's access to the tools used to commit hate crimes or crimes against women / gay / trans people, a la chemical castration in the case of women and rape, or banning baseball bats in response to the killing of Edgar Garzon.

It's apples to oranges.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. no it's not. we dont just talk about punishment when it come to discussing rape/hate crimes

we talk about reducing what is also causing said hate crimes. i give a shit if someone is stuck in prison for 25 years instead of 20, if i am already dead.

[X_Digger]

17. Right- changing minds. Not banning the implements used.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. making restrictions on the instrument would help, for instance reducing the number of hate radio

shows would help reduce homophobia in society.

if there are laws, that can be applied before a disaster becomes a disaster, it should be on the table

although, i still think you are not answering my question.

[X_Digger]

23. Again, that's one step removed from the action that we wish to see disappear.

It's changing the minds of people, limiting inculcation into ideas that promote it, not the tools they might use to commit such crimes.

Analogous action would be banning baseball bats in light of Edgar Garzon's killing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. baseball bats have another use besides killing. what exactly do urban people do with guns

besides killing.

again though no matter your position on guns, my point is why is this debate off the table?

[X_Digger]

26. Thank you for at least conceding that the analogy is weak.

Urban people can to the same things with guns that a majority of gun owners do- self-defense, home protection, sport shooting, collecting. Not to mention they do make these things called cars that can take people living in cities to these places called national forests where one can hunt. (I live in a city and have been known to avail myself of 'cars' to do this.)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

34. the analogy to baseball bats or knives is weak. they never cause the casual havoc a single gun can

cause. the death rates are stunningly low in comparison to guns

Also Canadian gun laws are MUCH stricter than American gun laws

Gun laws in Germany are at least as strict as Canadian laws

Which is to say, that gun restrictions are related to gun violence inversely

[X_Digger]

39. So I shouldn't expect you to support a baseball bat ban the next time a gay person is killed?

Good, that'd be silly. As silly to me as limiting guns because a criminal used one to commit a crime.

Re Germany- our NON-gun homicide rate is twice that of their total rate. There is some attitude or social condition that seems to make us more likely to turn to homicide at a much higher rate, even *without* guns.

[CreekDog]

68. is there an epidemic of mass baseball bat beatings that kill several people at once?

if so, maybe we should investigate that.

but maybe you can tell me if the numbers of baseball bat homicides and multiple homicides per baseball bat incident is comparable to guns.

can you can you can you can you?

you aren't interested.

[X_Digger]

75. Interesting diversion into another area, but that wasn't the topic we were discussing.

A hate crime is often followed by calls for legislation to punish them more severely, as well as education campaigns to stamp out the bigotry / racism / misogyny at the heart of such actions. Not calls to ban the tools such crimes are committed with.

In 2012 there were 518 people killed with blunt objects- more than were killed in mass shootings.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

Or do the numbers only matter when it's more than one at a time?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

132. Your own chart show guns account for 2/3rds of all murders.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

105. So,...your argument is to arm the more murderous country.

[X_Digger]

114. So.. you banana patch in the mojo cup on Friddlledays?

See how that works when you go, "So.." and put whatever words you want after that?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

125. Beats Reagan and his "Well,..."

[Boom Sound 416]

50. Norway has some pretty strict gun laws

And a guy killed 70 children

And other than an assault weapons ban (which is not necessarily a bad thing) I don't know what would have prevented new town. Even an assault weapon ban would have limited the firepower not the action.

[beevul]

52. They have an assault weapon ban at the state level.

They had it well before newtown.

[Boom Sound 416]

54. I didn't know that

And perhaps more to my point

[awoke_in_2003]

74. Yeah, this happens in Norway all the time...

[Boom Sound 416]

82. Norway is about the size of Colorado and Minnesota each

Their is some math there.

[7962]

106. True, but the "per 100k" rate is what to look at. They have a high rate of gun ownership;

yet low gun crime. Low crime period for that matter. Finland, Sweden, even Canada all have fairly high ownership rates. But look at their crime rates.
Another thread quotes a study equating Japans low gun ownership rate with being safer, yet Rwanda and Haiti have the same rate of gun ownership as Japan. No mention as to why the murder rate there doesn't matter.
Sorry, but its a culture problem more than anything else. Until we admit it and recognize it, we'll continue to see more of the same.

[Boom Sound 416]

107. Agreed

Someone made the point earlier about those countries having the social structure that's absent in our own.

The despair factor, if you will.

[Doctor_J]

83. yeah, once

Instead of monthly like here.

[Boom Sound 416]

84. Yes

Please see #82

[WCLinolVir]

80. And how many mass murders are committed with bats?

[X_Digger]

81. So only hate crimes with multiple victims deserve legislation? Tsk tsk tsk. n/t

[U4ikLefty]

112. Purposefully obtuse.

This is why we don't trust NRA shills.

[X_Digger]

113. No, I just refuse to be red herring'ed into another subject involuntarily.

We're talking about hate crimes and the response to them, and how that compares to the response to gun crimes.

[U4ikLefty]

117. WRONG. We are talking about guns & crime.

You (and the NRA) want to throw up a smoke screen.

And post (ad nauseum) in threads like this to discourage debate through exhaustion.

Very sad that NRA shills are allowed to pollute these threads.

[X_Digger]

133. Perhaps you might want to review the OP, and the subject at hand. n/t

[HappyMe]

22. Well, gee!

It's just that easy - changing somebody's mind about murdering somebody with a gun!

[X_Digger]

25. Question for you..

Why do you think that other countries that have high(er) levels of gun ownership don't have correspondingly high levels of gun use in crime?

What is it about Switzerland that make them not have twice the level of gun homicides as the UK, since they have twice the level of gun ownership?

What attitude in the US makes our non-gun homicide rate almost double that of Germany's *total* homicide rate?

Hopelessness? Income inequality? Lack of a social safety net? An attitude of 'get it any way you can'? A culture of machismo that pushes 'don't disrespect me!'

[HappyMe]

33. People murder others for any number of reasons.

I know a fair amount of people that are on the lower income brackets - not a single one of them has killed anybody.

Sorry, but if you took away the ability to easily obtain a gun, there would be less mass shootings and murders.
Economic inequality, poor people and untreated mentally ill people would still exist. Having a gun doesn't do shit for those people.

[X_Digger]

40. I think you missed my point- even without guns, we tend to be twice as homicidal as Germany

or a whole host of other countries that have similar characteristics.

If every gun magically disappeared tomorrow, and all the crimes that would have been committed with them never happened (which is conceding a lot, mind you), we'd still have a homicide rate twice as high as Switzerland, Germany, or Spain.

[HappyMe]

42. Without guns, there would be way, way less murder.

A gun makes it so easy.

I'm not going to assume that the murder rate would be would still be high.

[X_Digger]

43. Umm, I can't see the logic in that, but okay. n/t

[7962]

131. Therein lies the catch-22;

No one can dispute that if there were NO guns there would be less murder. I'm a gun owner and I KNOW that. There's no doubt. When you compare us to other countries, there are no handguns there. There never has been, for the most part. So there is a small amount of criminal activity with a handgun. But here is where the problem is. We HAVE the guns. 300 million of them. Even if we made ALL of them illegal, no criminal element would turn theirs in. At that point, we become even more vulnerable. And referring to my post above, we also HAVE to take into account the cultural element that doesnt exist in so many other countries. We have a "I'm gonna get mine" attitude here that we didnt have 30 yrs ago. Definitely didnt have it 50-60 years ago. Even during the depression people didnt turn to crime en masse.
Today, everyone wants to keep up with the damn kardashians, they see what rich people have on TV and they want it too. Too many dont want to work for it or be happy with what they DO have.

[HappyMe]

134. Yeah, I know making them all illegal is goofy

and impossible to enforce. Against the Constitution too.

I don't know what has to happen here. Better background checks, no selling on the internet.....
Something has to happen though.

People have simply become more selfish and self-centered.

[7962]

144. I agree 100%. nt

[Boom Sound 416]

46. Circumspect

[X_Digger]

47. Ugh, lol. That was completely unintentional. n/t

[Boom Sound 416]

51. That's what made it so funny

[CreekDog]

69. you both laugh and have the same sense of humor when it comes to gun killings

congratulations on your newfound friendship.

[X_Digger]

77. You be sure to tut-tut all those posting funny stories in the last 24 hours to lighten the mood, ya?

Or is your moral approbation reserved for those you agree with?

[WCLinolVir]

76. Wow, I mean really. You have got to be kidding me.

What a pity you are forced to be circumspect. If only you could say what you really mean and we could all see into the shallows of your soul.

[awoke_in_2003]

73. Well, to some...

talking about getting rid of people's guns is like talking about taking away their penises. You see it here, too.

[HappyMe]

9. Holy crap!

[Yavin4]

10. Excellent questions

I await excellent answers.

[WilliamPitt]

13. Spot on.

K&R.

[petronius]

15. I think that's what happens when a discussion becomes entrenched and

repetitive - nothing is being said that hasn't been said 1000 times already, few (if any) new ideas are on the table, battle-lines are drawn in permanent marker. So the 'discussion' shifts to the meta-level, with attempts to exclude or disqualify opponents and their arguments, group or personal insults, and the regurgitation of trite and empty catchphrases...

[pintobean]

29. This is the correct answer.

It's not just the two sides in the gun debate during these big events, either. Other issues and players become involved - mental health, gaming, etc...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. I don't think some on here are digging deep enough to get to the root of the problem

they are merely scratching the surface. The system is failing.

[pintobean]

59. It's dumbfounding

how badly it has failed in this incident.

[U4ikLefty]

115. Obviously the root causes are 1) mental illness and 2) violent video-games

[Tuesday Afternoon]

123. it is systemic. septic.

[U4ikLefty]

127. No, it's mostly the guns.

If you take away the guns from these nuts you get many, many fewer deaths.

You know that & that is why it has to be "systemic." The only systemic issue is that the NRA is not allowing any REAL gun legislation to occur.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

130. Good bye.

[DanTex]

18. Exactly.

[Doctor_J]

20. Because we've accepted the fact that some times hate is a factor in a crime

Everyone agrees on that. Meanwhile, the NRA and their cult refuse, absolutely, to admit that guns are a factor in shooting sprees.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

95. Take the gun, leave the mental illness

[Doctor_J]

103. or deal with both

[Nuclear Unicorn]

104. If you deal with the mental illness then the gun isn't a threat

[nyquil_man]

135. What are you suggesting when you say "deal with the mental illness"? nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. To get them the care they require to

first not be a threat to themselves or others. Then to be productive members of society who live healthy, happy lives.

[nyquil_man]

138. How will you go about getting them to do it?

By force?

And how do you determine who's a genuine threat? Are most mentally ill people a threat to others and themselves?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

139. Some people are genuine threats. They need intervention as unhappy a thought as that may be.

[nyquil_man]

140. Yes, I know. Now how do you determine it and how do you get them treated?

You're speaking in idealistic generalities. Sure, it would be great if mental illness weren't an issue and everybody were happy and productive. But how do you go about doing that in our society?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

141. The legal mechanisms already exist and have existed for sometime

Actual treatment is the ever-evolving issue.

[nyquil_man]

142. How would those legal mechanisms have prevented something like Newtown?

Lanza, IIRC, had no criminal record and no history of violence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

143. He was under care, IIRC. But then there's Cho, Holmes, Alexis and Loughner.

And while not insane, Hassan was throwing red flags left and right.

[nyquil_man]

145. The legal mechanisms didn't stop any of them.

Cho was judged by a court to be a danger to others and himself yet, in violation of federal law, was allowed to purchase firearms. I'd call that a failure of the legal mechanism.

So how would you beef it up?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

146. Cho should have been committed.

Just our of curiosity, where do you stand on gun control? Because, if the authorities are as powerless as you describe I can think of no greater reason to preserve the RKBA.

[nyquil_man]

147. Should Lanza have been committed?

You create the impression that the authorities are powerless, first by stating that the legal mechanisms are in place and then by citing several cases where those legal mechanisms didn't do a thing to prevent violence.

As to your question: Frankly, I don't care if someone owns one gun or a million guns so long as they don't act like a damned idiot. However, I find your solution of somehow forcing the mentally ill to be happy and productive about as viable as the solution of banning every gun.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

148. If the mentally ill had any control over their state of being they wouldn't be ill.

No one blames the diabetic for not being able to naturally regulate insulin. However, some mental illness does lead to violent acting out. If those who cannot refrain from violent acting out will not seek treatment then they are by default left at large. I'm curious to know under what principle society is obligated to endure violent acting out, the helplessness of the actor notwithstanding.

If we are obligated to allow the potentially violent to walk freely then we are also allowed to defend ourselves during the inevitable outrage. However, I'm also equally curious to know how this is compassionate to either society or the mentally ill. Because Cho and Alexis were not involuntarily committed and treated they were gunned down instead.

But I'm the insensitive one.

[nyquil_man]

149. Perhaps you'd rather debate with someone else.

You clearly aren't debating with me. Nor are you answering my questions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

150. You asked

Should Lanza have been committed?

I mentioned others, i.e. Cho and Alexis. Both were manifest paranoid schizophrenics, as was Loughner. If you want a name-by-name competency hearing this would get tedious fast. I named who I named to inform you of the fact that I am not opposed to involuntary commitment and then expounded on my reasons as to why.

The topic is about rampage killers. The OP wants to dictate terms of gun control and nothing else. That assumes the authorities can control 80 million gun owners who own over 350 million guns. Yet, somehow the anti-RKBA factions wants us to ignore the fact that many of these atrocities are committed by the mentally ill. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there are fewer than 80 million potentially violent paranoid schizophrenics.

That means logistics alone suggest a course of action but this is one of those things we're not supposed to discuss when the OP is telling us what we're supposed to be discussing because it isn't what the OP wants to discuss. The entire premise of the thread is a disingenuous façade.

You clearly aren't debating with me.

You invited yourself into my conversation. You're certainly free to do so but my point remains unchanged: deal with the mental illness and rampages -- with or without guns -- will grow increasingly rarer. You asked me to define how the MI should be dealt with. Yes, I am willing to endorse involuntary commitment. I prefer out-patient but public safety and the safety of the patient are paramount and the authorities have been lax in exercising their authority.

[nyquil_man]

152. "If you deal with the mental illness then the gun isn't a threat"

That was your initial claim. I'm glad to see that you've now modified it, despite your assertion to the contrary, to the far more realistic position that "rampages -- with or without guns -- will grow increasingly rarer."

The legal mechanisms currently in place do not address people like Lanza, who give no indication of the threat they pose until it's too late. It may well be that better care could have prevented Newtown, but how on earth do you ensure that when there's no legal means to compel it?

Can we force a mentally ill person, who has posed no obvious threat, to obtain better care any more than we can force a diabetic to take insulin? If so, how?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

153. It would be silly to use Lanza as an excuse to not commit Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Hassan, etc.

Can we force a mentally ill person, who has posed no obvious threat, to obtain better care any more than we can force a diabetic to take insulin? If so, how?

There's a tremendous difference between ignoring one's insulin and being a paranoid schizophrenic with violent potential. While I will grant the MI health professionals are excellent at what they do they cannot humanly be expected to intervene in all cases. That being said they do make good calls, as is the case of Holmes. Yet the system -- the system pro-controllers trust to enforce their agenda -- actively refused to do what was required of them under the law.

That being noted, if we cannot hope the professionals will be able to intercede in every case and we cannot trust law enforcement to act as it is supposed then -- as has always been the case -- the people are their first, best defenders and we ought not unreasonably impair their ability to do so.

[nyquil_man]

154. Your initial claim was hopelessly naive.

I can't put it any more bluntly than that.

[Posteritatis]

21. Whenever a massacre with a gun occurs...

... The reflex seems more to scapegoat the mentally ill - always a monolith - because that's easier than discussing the actual issues, and still a lot more socially acceptable than trying a similar stunt on the other two groups of victims you mention there.

There's still progress, at least - only a few years ago sneering dismissiveness about transfolk was perfectly okay, and a couple decades back all three crimes would result in blaming or scapegoating entire populations - but yeah. Part of the answer to your question, and probably the biggest part, is "simply" the position guns have in American political consciousness, but another significant part is the fact that it's still politically and culturally okay to pass the blame on to a vast swathe of the population, and agitate for them all to have reduced rights, because that's simply more comfortable than looking at the root cause.

[mstinamotorcity2]

27. Because America uses Guns and Force

in almost everything it does or has done since the Mayflower

[KittyWampus]

28. Well, the narrative becomes almost entirely about banning one class of guns.

And not many want to talk about the overarching issue that goes beyond one class of guns or even gun ownership in general.

If you ask me, the overarching problem that needs to be addressed is VIOLENCE.

As we talk about the Culture of Rape, so there's a Culture of Violence.

And many of us unwittingly participate, legitimize and enforce this violent thread running through our society.

It's easier to demonize guns and gun owners and then say "that's the problem".

It's much more difficult to look for what is creating the dynamics that result in gun violence, rape, poverty and hate crimes.

All the crimes you mention in the OP involve violence.

What is it in our society that engenders violence and what can we each do to temper that?

Edit- One must also include Institutional Violence >>> things that are built into the present system that beat people down.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. my overall point isn't that gun control is the only solution, but to say it wont help is naive

and to say that we can't talk about it after a tragedy seems a little too convenient

[morningfog]

30. Great post. The gun suckers number on tactic is to change the subject.

Anything but guns. You can see it in this thread. The gun suckers are a deceitful and pathetic crew.

[FiveGoodMen]

32. The NRA hasn't taken an official stand in favor of crimes against gay people or gang rape...YET.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. the NRA is only the mouthpiece of a multi- billion dollar gun industry

the NRA Shields the gun industry from the heat of gun violence

[FiveGoodMen]

60. Well, either way, the point was that there's powerful money and organization behind the gun thing

That's why it gets special treatment.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

64. yeah. sorry if it sounded like i was contradicting you

i just was expanding on your point

[closeupready]

36. I've basically stopped contributing to gun discussions here.

They aren't discussions. They are browbeating sessions.

There is zero point to it, IMHO.

I'm going to K&R because I think you open a discussion about guns in good faith.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. its not even really a discussion about guns but the hypocrisy surrounding massacres

people want to shut down gun debates.

[closeupready]

67. Yes, I completely agree with you. And I'm pro-2nd amendment,

which to doctrinaire types here, means I'm a gun 'sucker'/humper, NRA turd, etc.

On the other hand, I've been able to have reasonable discussions back and forth on other discussion boards with people who are just as pro-gun control as anyone here. I'm not sure why the most offensive voices are the ones who control every single thread, but it does seem that way, so I just don't even try anymore.

Hugs to you, Lioness!

[U4ikLefty]

116. What do you mean by "I'm pro-2nd amendment"?

Are you not for a standing army?

Do you agree with Scalia & company?

Please clarify.

[closeupready]

118. Clarify ... how? Most of you want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I do not.

How can I make that more clear?

[U4ikLefty]

121. Non-answer & an acccusation. Let's try again

What do you mean by "I'm pro-2nd amendment"?

Do you agree with Scalia & company?

[closeupready]

122. See post #118.

[U4ikLefty]

124. As I thought...you have nothing.

typical

[closeupready]

126. LOL - I have an opinion about onions, and you ask about tricycles.

Further, you ask if I agree with a third party about Schwinn's versus Viper's.

[Squinch]

38. Kick!

[Boom Sound 416]

41. The argument is about the offender, right

When it's rape, it's a rapist.

When it's race, it's a racist

When it's lgbt, it's bigotry.

When it's mass murder, is it the guns that are the offender? That's the argument. Not whether or not it's a tragedy, etc.

[justiceischeap]

53. A perfect case in point to refute your question

is the Newtown shooting. On the same day, a guy went on a rampage in China with a knife.

Death toll China: 0
Death toll US: 20

Why debate mass shootings at all if you think talking about the offender instead of guns is the right course of action? If not for the gun, what would the offender in "MASS SHOOTINGS" do?

[Boom Sound 416]

55. So we're accepting that people

Go on mass rampages, so let's take away their guns.

I know that's not really your point, but mine is that it misses the problem, which is your case in point.

I just learned in an earlier post in this threat that CT has an assault weapons ban. I'm surprised with all the coverage that I missed that. I think that has some bearing on the situation.

[justiceischeap]

57. I think if someone goes on a mass rampage

and survives in the end, then hell, yes, they should never be allowed a gun again. I think people with serious mental health issues should not be allowed to legally own guns. I think people with a history of violence should not be allowed to legally own guns. We can legally take away a persons right to vote if they commit a felony but we can't take away their right to purchase a gun? Where is the sense in that?

We also often talk about the lack of mental health care in this country when this happens too. That's a definite point of contention when it comes to mass rampages. We also often talk about how the media makes it worse by making these mass rampagers anti-heroes. Gun control is just one of the many topics we discuss on DU when it comes to this type of thing.

[Boom Sound 416]

63. I don't think ex-cons can have guns legally

[justiceischeap]

86. North Caroline Supreme Court ruled in 2009

that felons have a constitutional right to bear arms, in 2013, a judge in Louisiana ruled the same. In many states ex-cons can actually have their rights restored. Of course, you then have the federal law/state law argument to contend with but unless a federal agency is screening gun purchases, they'd never know if a state allowed a felon to purchase a weapon.

[Boom Sound 416]

111. That's effed up

I never understood why a rehabilitated ex-con whose paid his debt and may re-enter society can't vote.

[JoeyT]

45. The people that insist

talking about guns after a gun massacre is politicizing a tragedy are more often than not the same people that run around bellowing excuses for why the victim deserved it in every other one of your examples. If they can't get away with that they fall back on derailing tactics.

People that lack empathy on one subject usually don't have much to spare on any other subject.

[Glassunion]

48. The debate becomes poisoned almost from the start.

Folks on both sides of the fence will, almost without fail attempt to frame the debate before it gets started, and that is doomed to failure.

[aikoaiko]

49. We often don't know what happened in the first 24-48 hours

At least not enough to make decisions about what laws would have prevented the particular tragedy.

[The Straight Story]

56. Are we discussing cause or how something was done?

Some think the cause is all people who own guns, when the numbers show that most gun owners do not behave in such a way.

All of the things you mentioned are about a state of mind (ignorance/hate) but we don't discuss that when it comes to people who shoot.

A mother can kill her kids (posted about that today) but not use a gun and people might ask why. Use a gun, people think there is no why just how - and stopping how will stop why (it never has).

Educate people on gun safety, enforce the laws we have, and try to find out why people are killing each other (less than 1% with guns kill or harm others, so that is not a cause but a tool).

If a rw fundie who hated gay people shot a gay person to death would we be blaming the gun or what was at the core of why they did what they did? Whenever a crime story happens with a gun DU spends tons of threads about guns and it seems no one is stopping to ask why they did what they did and why most people don't do that.

[Vashta Nerada]

58. Because the gun nuts would rather plug their ears, close their eyes, and scream.

They want to blame everything else for the problem except for guns.

[stevenleser]

61. Excellent point. I think what we are seeing is one of the true religions of this country is the

firearm religion. For some, the gun is the deity and is sacrosanct. You can criticize their other (in reality, more 'minor') religion, you can discuss raising or lowering taxes, you can discuss all kinds of other rights and responsibilities, but if you suggest they shouldn't have the right to a gun, or that the existence of guns in our culture is a major cause of the violence we are experiencing, it is an incomparably massive offense to them.

[The Straight Story]

65. You would be wrong

It is like many other topics - it is about freedom from the government controlling our choices in life. From abortion, to guns, to what we do on our personal time.

Folks get upset when you tell them that because a few people abuse something we must punish them all, and the only person to trust is the government (or someone who works for them).

When over 99% of a group does not misuse something why try to punish them and remove something they use for hunting, fishing, sport, etc? That is not freedom, that is restriction.

Let's say we get background checks for all and the death by guns in this country is still 0.02% of guns, what then? Another law? Which one? If a law is enacted and fails to change the rate, will we remove it or just keep adding more?

How about you post some ops given good reasons to add some laws making it harder to get an abortion. That would not be well recieved - but I don't think people would say it was your religion. You value pro-choice, freedom to live your life and not have people in power interfere. Look at how folks were reacting to gosnell in PA "oh, the right will use this to further their agenda for more laws" replace a few words in that....

Less government in our business, more in our roads, securing the rights for all to marry, welfare, health care, etc - but quit trying to punish the 99 percent for the what the less than one percent does. It is silly whether the right is using that idea or the left.

[stevenleser]

91. Boom, you and he help prove my point! LOL!

[stevenleser]

90. LOL, if anything, your post is more evidence I am right.

"Freedom" to own a device that shoots small projectiles of metal through the air at potentially lethal speeds is a completely ludicrous "freedom" to be protecting.

And yet look how hard you and others try.

[The Straight Story]

93. Our founders felt it was important enough to specifically mention it by name

As noted before, I don't own a gun, base my argument off of principles we hold - that the government does not give us freedoms, it protects them.

We have a slew of gun laws already but laws without money to enforce them are useless (how much does your local government spend on drugs/speeders compared to protecting against other things and enforcing other laws?).

If you want the federal government to step in and do even more about the less than one percent of offenders please explain what new laws and how specifically they will be obeyed by those few when they don't obey others. Reasonable limitations are, well, reasonable - but they will never stop every incident - at some point you have to fine tune what it is you are looking at.

That comes down to the 'why' of what has been done, looking at the person looking for reasons, causes, etc - but when all you focus on is an emotional reaction that involves new laws you will never get there since the people in question don't plan on heeding such things anyway.

We have lost the ability to examine further because our focus is lost. Blame one thing and try to create a band aid to fit all cases - that cannot and will not work. A lot of people in rural Alaska own guns for their own well being as well as hunting, should they be punished for what someone living in Chicago does? Why should their rights suffer because of what a very few do? To make others 'feel' more secure, like we did after 9/11 rushing into new laws and such? How did that work out?

[stevenleser]

97. And we should be attuned to which of the founder's views are now anachronisms, like gun ownership.

The time distance between the time of the founders and our time is pretty similar to the time between the founders and the end of the medieval or middle ages or as some refer to them whole or in part, the 'Dark' ages. It's thus extremely important to look to the founder's viewpoints with an eye to which of their views no longer make sense because of the difference in how life is now compared to back then.

In the 1700's, much of the country was frontier-land, a fair percentage of the population hunted for food, we were in the process of taking land away from native Americans who didn't appreciate it, there was no phone to call for law enforcement if you needed it and if you could call, help was hours or days away, and for all those reasons, a gun was a part of life.

This is no longer a frontier country, the vast majority of people do not hunt for food, no native tribes are going to attack your homestead, and police respond in minutes. Each gun has a much higher probability of shooting a family member or someone else not engaged in a crime, than it does in crime defense. Wherever gun ownership is highest, there are more gun deaths.

Gun ownership is an anachronism begging to be rectified.

[Hekate]

62. Spot on. nt

[billh58]

66. K&R

Well said.

[NYC_SKP]

70. K/R!

Too much heat, not enough light, too much emotion on both sides of the question.

Expand California's restrictive policies to other states, I've said this for years but don't always include it in a reply in a gun thread.

So, when I suggest that violence is behind these acts, and that we need to ALSO address the violent culture, and inequity, and hopelessness, and gangs and poverty, etc.,...

...I'm shut down for not towing a very narrow POV that seems to suggest that guns are the problem.

No shit Sherlock, guns are the problem. And behind that are violent people.

If we only fix the gun part we're doomed to failure on the violence part.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

79. i agree that guns are not the whole problem but guns make it easier to kill people

and restricting guns will help but wont completely solve violence

but just because we cant fix something 100%, doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for 30%

[Rowdyboy]

71. Thank you. Wish someone outside of DU would ask this question...

Instead they nod solemnly and agree its "just too soon".

[etherealtruth]

72. Because guns and the nuts that love them are special

[liberal N proud]

78. Three letters NRA

The NRÀ makes it political.

[Llewlladdwr]

85. Are you seriously suggesting...

that gun control proponents here on DU are being prevented from speaking out? 'Cause that certainly isn't matching up with my experience. It seemed like every other thread in GD yesterday was "Fuck the gun humpers!!!!!!!!!!" or something along those lines.

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. The word "glee" leads to an OP by Rebellious Republican the day of the shooting.

Find that post and reply #19. Read the edits. He asked for a moment to grieve and she stepped on it. I asked her to edit her post and she got angry.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

108. i got angry at your sanctimonious tone but the word glee was not only used by RR

it is routinely used after these incidents. his was at least a personal situation, others say this with no personal stakes either.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

109. i am seriously suggesting that both on DU and off DU people seem really quick

to say "too soon" after a gun incident. why is it too soon? its never too soon for other victims

[NCTraveler]

88. It is reactionary for many.

Here on du it is just a very vocal minority doing this.

As for here, I think many of the gun rights advocates hate how a tragedy like this elevates the conversation. I think it is fair for them to state that tragedy's like this aren't the root of the gun problems in this country. Mass shootings are such a small portion of gun deaths. They know this and will try to use it. It is a very hard argument for them to put together because it comes off cold and callous. They have mental difficulty stating their position in a situation like this. But they know this puts their dear sweet guns right in the spotlight. Their dream is to end all discussion about gun regulation. They like the current state of gun control. They know that it takes something like this to create a national discussion. The bigger problem with respect to their guns seems to only make the local news. That's the way they like it.

What is callous is not discussing the events and possible solutions to stop unnecessary future deaths.

[Dash87]

92. Because the NRA is full of petulant children?

"We should really take a look at how to prevent gun crime" gets a response of "FASCIST YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL OF OUR GUNS AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT IS GONNA COME PUT US IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS BLARGGLEYARGGLEAHHHHH!!! GUNS ARE TOTALLY SAFE IT'S VIDEO GAMES AND MOVIES AND GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE DO! HANDS OFF MY AR-15 I NEED IT FOR THE COMING UN INVASION!BBBBBTTTTAHHHHHH!"

Completely sane response if you ask me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. Do women, gays and transpersons have a right to self-defense?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

98. this is relevant how?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. Self-defense is a human right. Let's not strip them of the means of defending themselves.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

100. and this is why conversations about gun control after massacres is considered a political issue?

or people expressing glee over death?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

101. If self-defense is a basic, essential human right then those rights trump

Many southerners complained that emancipation, suffrage rights and desegregation would destroy their way of life. They were right, it would and because they were right about those facts it became a strong political issue for them.

But all the while they neglected the basic, essential human rights of others they were obligated to not offend.

We can talk about transphobia, homophobia, misogyny and all the other myriad of hate crimes people perpetrate upon each other. Those darkened souls will always be with us no matter how much awareness we try to bring to the fundamental humanity of the people they would victimize. We can't change them, they refuse to be changed. It is what makes evil, evil. All we can do is prepare ourselves for the inevitable as we go about our lives caring for each other and recognizing even the best intentioned police force (those rarest of gems) cannot intervene.

Whatever conversations we think we might need to have cannot ignore these basics facts.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

110. you're not answering my questions at all though. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

119. You wrote in the OP --

So why is it that when a massacre with a gun occurs, if we discuss gun politics suddenly we are politicizing a tragedy or expressing glee about a tragedy?

Isn't the best way to deal with a tragedy, to deal with root causes of said tragedy? Why is this considered some evil form of gloating?

I think it's extremely convenient to label people callous and insensitive to shutdown a debate you don't want to have at any given time. Before, during and after a massacre with a gun.

In the case of hate-crimes we discuss these things because we all agree they are evil. We discuss bringing them to an end. We acknowledge the debasement of common human rights.

What I wrote in response was the side of the "discussion" about guns is perpetually, unceasing ignored. Human rights trump emotion. You're free to discuss whatever you but rights still trump emotion.

The fact that the pro-control faction refuses to allow this fact into the discussion proves that what they want is NOT a discussion but to dictate terms. If dictating terms is the only acceptable resolution to the pro-control faction then they should be prepared to accept the cynicism about their motives that such behavior engenders.

This sub-thread illustrates my point. I used the premise of the OP to attempt actually have a discussion about rights: there are no discussions; there is only the unilateral, self-appointed dictation of one-sided terms.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

128. given the tone of your writing, it doesnt sound like i am the one

dictating anything.

there is no universal agreement that homophobia/transphobia is wrong. just fyi.

i think possession of a thing does not trump human life.

also there is distinct second part to the 2nd amendment which makes person gun rights a highly debatable issue and not a guaranteed right.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

136. The human right to self-defense transcends its inclusion, or lack thereof, in any code of law.

I'm open to discussion if you believe it to be otherwise.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. I never comment about gun issues on DU because there is no discussion only two

sides using the issue as fodder for personal attacks and name calling. Take a look at any thread about mass shootings or gun control and you find tons of 'rofl' emoticons from folks who are about to pee their pants in glee in the middle of a 'discussion about mass murder'. How is that appropriate?
The name calling, the invective, the exploitation of victims. It is a 'discussion' dominated by bad intent.
The question to ask yourself if you actually care is what is the difference in the way those other issues are discussed when compared to gun issues.
And that's it for me. This issue is not sincerely cared about on DU. It is used for posing, posturing, name calling and division making. It is used. And that indicates a great callousness toward the actual issue. I'm sorry but it does.

[closeupready]

120. Agreed. I see essentially the same things you do.

So I rarely participate here in those discussions, let alone even open up the relevant threads. I opened this one only because Lionness is one of my favorite members here, and also she's reasonable.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

129. ...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

102. Sho' nuff! K&R!!!

[orpupilofnature57]

151. Because the NRA exists to polarize the subject and bilk $$$$$

1400 poisoned Aug 21 almost cause for military action, 1800 shot to death in US, not a peep.