Today was the 74th school shooting since Sandy Hook.

[Spider-Dan]

There was another school shooting near Portland, OR today.  It is the 74th school shooting since the mass murder in Newtown, CT less than two years ago:


(red = K-12)

An analysis of these shootings (back in February, so not quite up-to-date) provided the following facts (emphasis in original):

In the fourteen months since the mass shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 44 school shootings including fatal and nonfatal assaults, suicides, and unintentional shootings — an average of more than three a month.  In the first six weeks of 2014 alone, there were 13 school shootings including one eight-day period in which there were four shootings in K-12 schools.
These school shootings resulted in 28 deaths and 37 non-fatal gunshot injuries.  In 49 percent of these incidents at least one person died.
Of the K-12 school shootings in which the shooter’s age was known, 70 percent (20 of 28 incidents) were perpetrated by minors.  Among those shootings where it was possible to determine the source of the firearm, three-quarters of the shooters obtained their guns from home.
In 16 cases — more than a third of all incidents — at least one person was shot after a schoolyard argument or confrontation escalated and a gun was at hand.
The shooters ranged from 5 to 53 years of age.

The grip the gun lobby has on this country is unbelievable.  It literally does not matter how many shootings occur; we will continue to hear the same tired platitudes about freedom and liberty, mostly from the same crowd who insist that we imprison people for decades because they are getting high.

[CF DolFan]

Why are we not trying to outlaw alcohol or drugs? People use them and kill people. I mean ... knives kill many people each year as well. It seems a bit prejudice to only pick on guns.

Again ... we need better ways to deal with people with mental health issues. Until that is addressed people will use whatever tools to kill people just as the California kid did. Once people decide to take themselves out they will find a way to bring others with them.

[Phishfan]

I really hate this argument because it goes to the extreme so easily. As a middle of the road person who owns guns I find the arguing points generally rush right past me to the point I say both sides are being stupid.

[Sunstroke]

Why are we not trying to outlaw alcohol or drugs? People use them and kill people. I mean ... knives kill many people each year as well. It seems a bit prejudice to only pick on guns.

People eat spaghetti before killing people, so we should immediately pass an anti-pasta law. I also heard of a guy who went out and shot a bunch of people one Tuesday night after his wife gave him oral sex. This proves that we need anti-blowjob legislation, but only on Tuesday nights.

[/end sarcasm]

As far as the knives vs guns argument goes, all I can say is that you have to be a reeeeeeally good aim with a knife if you throw it at someone from a clock tower.

Once people decide to take themselves out they will find a way to bring others with them.

...and the easier it is to take others with them, the more likely that is to happen. It's pretty damned hard to be a mass murderer with a knife, and most of the kids who lose it and decide to off themselves aren't smart enough to construct an explosive device.

[Spider-Dan]

Why are we not trying to outlaw alcohol or drugs?

We did try outlawing alcohol outright and the solution was worse than the problem.  I would argue the same is the case for narcotics, but the War on Drugs continues (mostly) unabated.

So far, our most effective solution has been the one we used on tobacco: heavy regulation and extreme taxation.  Neither of these things are incompatible with the Second Amendment, mind you.

I mean ... knives kill many people each year as well. It seems a bit prejudice to only pick on guns.

Knives (and bats, and cars) have utility purposes outside the realm of inflicting injury.

Again ... we need better ways to deal with people with mental health issues.

...as long as it doesn't cost any money, right?  Because it seems like the pro-gun crowd overlaps almost entirely with the cut-government-spending crowd.

Until that is addressed people will use whatever tools to kill people just as the California kid did.

I thought this argument was adequately addressed with the mass stabbing in China on the same day as the Sandy Hook shooting; the one that resulted in zero fatalities.

[Brian Fein]

Why are we not trying to outlaw alcohol or drugs? People use them and kill people.

If a guy runs into a school with a bottle of Jack Daniels, how many people do you think he will murder before being "taken down?"

Actually, CF, I am on the same side of the discussion as you, believe it or not.  But your points in this post are not the right ones to defend your stance on gun control.

[CF DolFan]

Brian ... Alcohol meaning drunk drivers. Drunk drivers kill more people than school shootings.

I agree with you Spider about we've tried that before and the solution was worse than the problem. That is the point I'm trying to make. We don't need to be focused on the law abiding citizens but focus on the sick people who get to them ...  just as we do alcohol and the ones abusing prescription drugs.

Elliot Rodger stabbed three people, hit four people with his car and shot five people yet the only thing people focus on is the gun. Why is that?

I think most people would agree with some sort of "gun control"but outlawing them will never be the answer because bad people will still get them and it will be another thing for thugs to get rich for supplying them.

[Spider-Dan]

I agree with you Spider about we've tried that before and the solution was worse than the problem. That is the point I'm trying to make.

We have never outlawed guns in this country (in the same sense and to the extent that we have outlawed alcohol and narcotics) so the "we tried that already" point is inapplicable.

We don't need to be focused on the law abiding citizens but focus on the sick people who get to them ...  just as we do alcohol and the ones abusing prescription drugs.

Yet in the case of non-prescription drugs, we are happy to simply criminalize them and start locking people up.

In any case, the solution I propose is not a Prohibition-style total ban.  I'm more in favor of huge taxes and strict regulations.  It makes no sense to me that a license to operate a motor vehicle has far more onerous requirements than operating a lethal weapon whose only purpose is to inflict bodily harm.

Elliot Rodger stabbed three people, hit four people with his car and shot five people yet the only thing people focus on is the gun. Why is that?

Because of the other 73 school shootings in the last 2 years.

How many other incidents have there been of vehicular mass murders at schools in the same time frame?  How about mass stabbing fatalities?

I think most people would agree with some sort of "gun control" [...]

What kind of "gun control" do you support?  Please be specific.

[pondwater]

Yeah, lets restrict the rights of 300 million people because 75 criminals broke the law in the past 2 years. Maybe next you can go after the 1st amendment for people who you disagree with. Oh, that's right, the democrats are already trying to do that. That's the problem, Democrats think that rights are privileges, when in fact they are totally different.

[Spider-Dan]

I gather that you are saying you oppose unconstitutional attempts to restrict the rights of Americans to purchase high explosives.

Wait, let me guess: you're in favor of totally reasonable and constitutional restrictions on what kinds of weapons (bazookas? land mines? mustard gas?) private citizens are allowed to possess, while the restrictions I would prefer are clearly unconstitutional and a grave violation of American liberty.

[pondwater]

I gather that you are saying you oppose unconstitutional attempts to restrict the rights of Americans to purchase high explosives.

Wait, let me guess: you're in favor of totally reasonable and constitutional restrictions on what kinds of weapons (bazookas? land mines? mustard gas?) private citizens are allowed to possess, while the restrictions I would prefer are clearly unconstitutional and a grave violation of American liberty.

Your reply is moot. The 2nd amendment of the constitution grants citizens the individual right to keep and bear arms. The supreme court has already recently upheld this and concealed carry is now legal in 50 states. I'm sure you will agree that the supreme court ultimately decides what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. And again you fail to distinguish between rights and privileges. Here ya go, I'll help you understand. Straight from Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28legal_ethics%29

A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

What you are proposing isn't going to happen in my lifetime, therefore I could care less. If you have a problem with it talk to all the democrats that voted against gun control last time around. Then you can go argue with you the supreme court. In the end your position will lose

[Spider-Dan]

The Second Amendment says nothing about taxing firearms, and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the ability of the government to use taxing power.  Furthermore, the Constitution says nothing about whether open/concealed carry must be allowed, or about restrictions on where firearms may be carried.  Lastly, while the Second Amendment does make provisions for protecting the right of some people to bear arms, it does not at all restrict the ability of the government to regulate, say, sales of firearms.

So even though you completely ignored the issue of what weapons are permissible, it honestly doesn't even have to come to that.  My preferred solution would be very similar to the solution used with tobacco: onerous taxes, and heavy restrictions on sales/public usage.  Both of these things have a rock-solid historical precedent of constitutionality.

And while we are on the subject of privileges vs. rights:

A privilege is a special entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. It can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth.

Since you put it that way (with triple emphasis!), firearm ownership is unquestionably a privilege in the United States.

Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), any person convicted of a federal felony may not own a firearm.  Sounds pretty revocable to me, which means (according to you) it must not be a right.

[Fau Teixeira]

I'd be fine with a law that says that if a minor commits a crime and shoots someone with your firearm, you are legally responsible as well. Call it depraved indifference or gross negligence.

[Spider-Dan]

I'd be fine with a law that says that if a minor commits a crime and shoots someone with your firearm, you are legally responsible as well.

I'll go one step further and say that if someone commits a crime with your firearm, you should be held responsible for that crime.

Maybe then people will get serious about securing their guns from their children.

[pondwater]

The Second Amendment says nothing about taxing firearms, and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the ability of the government to use taxing power.  Furthermore, the Constitution says nothing about whether open/concealed carry must be allowed, or about restrictions on where firearms may be carried.  Lastly, while the Second Amendment does make provisions for protecting the right of some people to bear arms, it does not at all restrict the ability of the government to regulate, say, sales of firearms.

So even though you completely ignored the issue of what weapons are permissible, it honestly doesn't even have to come to that.  My preferred solution would be very similar to the solution used with tobacco: onerous taxes, and heavy restrictions on sales/public usage.  Both of these things have a rock-solid historical precedent of constitutionality.

And while we are on the subject of privileges vs. rights:
Since you put it that way (with triple emphasis!), firearm ownership is unquestionably a privilege in the United States.

Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), any person convicted of a federal felony may not own a firearm.  Sounds pretty revocable to me, which means (according to you) it must not be a right.

Nice hypothetical talking points, however like I said. Go argue with the members of your party that voted it down. Then go argue with the supreme court. Also you're wrong on the concealed carry point, the supreme court ruled that prohibiting carrying a firearm is unconstitutional. That's why all 50 states now allow carry of some kind.

From the decision:

The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a particular purpose—confrontation.”

Like I said, it's never gonna happen in my lifetime. Even if it does, there are 300 million firearms out there that have  already been sold that can't be taxed again and I'm stocked to the ceiling on guns and ammo. So, I could care less