Gun Control Debate -  Proposed gun control really won't help (1851 views) Notify me whenever anyone posts in this discussion.Subscribe
From: Glock221 DelphiPlus Member Icon4/9/13 3:33 PM 
To: All  (1 of 33) 

Original content moved to existing discussion: Zero tolerance for guns in schools


Guns but no roses
by Washington Post Writer's Group
April 10, 2013

WASHINGTON -- The biggest obstacle to the Obama administration's push for tighter gun control may be its own best argument: Newtown.

This is because nothing proposed in the gun control debates would have prevented the mass killing of children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and everybody knows it. At best, tighter gun laws will make us feel better.

Let's review: The Newtown killer was a mentally disturbed young man living with his mother. She had legally purchased her arsenal and had even taught her son how to responsibly handle firearms.

What she did not do was: (1) deal appropriately with her son's mental illness; (2) safely contain her guns so that her son could not access them.

As much as anyone, I am eager to do whatever will make a difference. But I'm unconvinced that what is being proposed will provide the solution we seek.

Universal background checks are a perfectly good idea, except that they won't stop the burglar who recently cleaned out our house of all our legally purchased rifles and shotguns, including an antique belonging to my great-grandfather, who, as sheriff of Barnwell County, S.C., confiscated the gun from the triple murderer he tracked for three days and finally killed. (I want that gun back, please.)

Those guns are now in circulation among an element of society that has no intention of submitting to a background check or any other well-intentioned effort to ensure that only good guys have guns.

Should we insist that buyers at gun shows submit to a quick background check as they would at any gun store? Sure. Why not? Federally licensed vendors at gun shows already have to conduct background checks, but everyday people who sell among themselves at the shows do not. Few beyond the gun lobby object to this step, but even this wouldn't have prevented Newtown.

Meanwhile, what about my neighbor, Mike, who, theoretically, wants to buy a shotgun I no longer use? Is it really practical to insist that he submit to a background check? Gun control proponents would have Mike and me run down to Dick's Sporting Goods (or some other "portal") and run through a quick background check. We could do that. Or, I could just give Mike the gun and he could hand me a couple hundred dollars one of these days.

If a law isn't enforceable, is it a good law? Does it prevent Newtown for neighbors to run through a little ritual that creates yet another level of government oversight for no real practical purpose other than to create a gun registry, which, whether one thinks this is a reasonable idea, gun control advocates insist they don't want?

But we have to do something, don't we?

Banning assault weapons and large magazines is appealing. But what, exactly, is an assault weapon, anyway? Most think of assault weapons as machine guns, but many popular firearms, from ranch rifles to handguns, are, like the AR-15 used at Newtown, semi-automatic. This means that they fire only one round each time the trigger is pulled and the gun automatically reloads. Do we ban all semi-automatic weapons?

Limiting the size of magazines also seems like a common-sense solution. Then again, maybe a killer would simply carry several small magazines and swap them out as Eric Harris did at Columbine High School in 1999 and Seung-Hui Cho did at Virginia Tech in 2007. Harris was armed with a Hi-Point 995 carbine with 13 magazines of 10 rounds each. His partner, Dylan Klebold, carried a semi-automatic handgun and a short-barrel shotgun, which gun experts will tell you is the most effective close-range weapon of all. And Cho used two handguns that are not considered "assault weapons."

In a country with an estimated 250 million to 300 million guns, imposing new laws on honest people is problematic and bureaucratically complicated. Add to the conundrum our politics of individual freedom combined with the exploitation of emotion to craft what is likely an impotent solution, it is little wonder our congressional leadership is bamboozled.

The fact is, crazy people who would commit a Newtown-type massacre constitute an infinitesimal percentage of the population. Criminals will always have guns, as the murderer on death row told me when I first wrote about this issue 30 years ago. And forcing law-abiding gun owners to submit to new regulations will not prevent another Newtown, or Aurora, or Columbine.

This is not to say we should do nothing. But, lest we delude ourselves, whatever we do, we will do because it makes us feel better. Perhaps that is enough.


  • Edited 4/17/2013 5:14 pm by EdGlaze
 Reply   Options 

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host7/30/13 4:34 PM 
To: All  (2 of 33) 
 1203.2 in reply to 1203.1 


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host8/5/13 5:37 PM 
To: All  (3 of 33) 
 1203.3 in reply to 1203.1 

photo GunDebateGunBan_zpsd37c0626.png


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host9/24/13 5:05 PM 
To: All  (4 of 33) 
 1203.4 in reply to 1203.3 

Blame the homicidal maniac, not the guns
by Emily Miller
18 Sep 2013

It is painful and tragic that 12 hardworking people at the Washington Navy Yard went to work Monday and never came home. Aaron Alexis shot 29 people before the police were able to stop him. President Obama and his allies in the liberal media jumped to blame the weapons, but there is not a single gun-control law that could have prevented that horrific massacre.

Alexis, a former Navy reservist, has been treated for at least the last month by the Department of Veterans Affairs for his severe mental problems. He was reportedly paranoid and hearing voices, which are signs of schizophrenia.

He was insane — or as the politically correct media said yesterday, he "had anger issues." The defense contractor-turned-mass murderer also had some issue with something or someone in Building 197 in the military complex and was determined to carry out this delusional mission.

Mr. Obama said Monday that the federal government will do "everything we can to try to prevent" these mass shootings. By that, he is laying the groundwork for trying to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate for the so-called universal background check.

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has already organized a rally at the U.S. Capitol on Thursday to push for the expanding background checks.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday, "The problem here is senators, overwhelmingly from one party, who refuse to do something very simple, which is expand the background-check system that everyone believes functions well, but needs to function better."

That's not accurate. Even if Mr. Obama's "universal background-check" system was in place and every single private firearms transaction went through the federal government, it still would not have stopped the Navy Yard shooter.

Alexis passed background checks by both the FBI and the state of Virginia when he legally bought a shotgun this past weekend at Sharpshooters Small Arms Range in Lorton.

He was not denied by the federal or state government because he does not have any records in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that would put him in the category of prohibited persons, which includes drug users, domestic abusers, felons and persons dishonorably discharged from the military. While he had an arrest for a firearm misdemeanor in the past, no charges were filed.

To be denied by NICS for mental health reasons, a person has to have been judged mentally deficient or have been committed to a mental institution — neither of which was the case in this situation.

If the gun grabbers would stop fixating on firearms and look at the more complicated issue of mental illness, they might actually discover a way to reduce gun violence. In the case of Alexis, I would suggest four ways authorities might have stopped this crazy person from killing so many innocent people.

First, the Department of Veterans Affairs could have locked up Alexis in a mental hospital when he said he was having psychotic delusions.

Second, the states that are refusing to put mental health records into the NICS system should be cut off from some federal funds until they do. The National Shooting Sports Foundation ranks states based on how many mental health records they have submitted to the FBI per year at It should be a map of shame for those who let deranged people buy illegal guns.

Third, the Navy could have recalled Alexis' defense-contractor security clearance owing to mental health issues — had the severity become known from health records from the VA.

Finally, the shooter would not have been able to do as much damage if people inside the military installation were armed, a debate that came up in 2009 after the Fort Hood shooting in Texas, in which 13 were killed.

With the exception of the shooting of then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, every other mass shooting in recent years has been in gun-free zones.

It seems bizarre that we give firearms to our military personnel and send them around the world to defend our freedom, then we bring them back home and corral them into areas without any means to defend themselves from terrorist or criminal attacks. Congress should debate this Clinton-era policy of banning firearms on military installations.

(Of course, the complete ban on carry rights in the District would also have to be eliminated for those who work at the Navy Yard to bear arms.)

Mass shootings are rare, averaging 18 deaths a year, but they have one common thread — severely mentally ill people who are determined to kill as many as possible and who have no fear of dying themselves.

While gun grabbers want yet more laws, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported in April that "potential perpetrators cannot be identified accurately" before mass shootings so "no systematic means of intervening are known to be effective."

Mr. Obama should stop exploiting innocent people's deaths for a political agenda that he knows won't make anyone safer.

  • Edited June 12, 2016 9:26 am  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host5/20/14 11:22 PM 
To: All  (5 of 33) 
 1203.5 in reply to 1203.4 


  • Edited May 20, 2014 11:43 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host5/27/14 2:22 PM 
To: All  (6 of 33) 
 1203.6 in reply to 1203.5 


by Massad Ayoob
25 May 2014

The latest mass murder spree, this one in California, has once again led the media to focus on guns. The killer’s family has announced through their attorney that they are in favor of gun control and “staunchly against guns.” The family’s attorney added something that makes more sense: “My client’s mission in life will be to try to prevent any such tragedies from happening again. This country, this world, needs to address mental illness and the ramifications from not recognizing these illnesses.”

The father of one of the victims blames guns and gun people too, apparently. “…craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA” are the focus of a fist-waving emotional tirade, here.

I can understand and forgive the emotions generated by the terrible grief the loved ones of innocent murder victims experience. The tool of the murderer becomes a symbol, and then the focus, of their pain.  At the time the last statement was made, the speaker may not have known that the killer committed his first three murders with a knife.

The killer’s family is “staunchly against guns”? Did that include the killer himself? Like the disgruntled ex-cop who turned rogue and gunned down a series of cops and innocent victims in SoCal some fifteen months ago, using the same “assault weapons” he railed against in his sick manifesto, the same document in which he praised the gun prohibitionists? Food for thought, there. This latest homicidal creature has left behind a long manifesto, a self-portrait of a psychopathic, misogynistic narcissist. He writes in part that he is “…Divine! I am the closest thing there is to a living god. Humanity is a disgusting, depraved, and evil species. It is my purpose to punish them all. On the Day of Retribution, I will truly be a powerful god, punishing everyone I deem to be impure and depraved.” Read his screed yourself

Elliot Rodger, Santa Barbara mass shooting suspect, "My Twisted World" manifesto by Matthew Keys

Before this latest killer’s YouTube videos were taken down, I was able to review some of them. Watch it below before it disappears again.  He comes across as a creepy reincarnation of Sal Mineo, but with much less acting ability. He overdramatically recites an obviously rehearsed tirade, complete with a repeated, hokey “heh-heh-heh” chuckle that reminds one of cartoon villains. Celebrating his own magnificence as “a supreme gentleman” and an “alpha male,” he bemoans the fact that he’s a 22-year-old virgin whom girls don’t want. If his approach to people in real life was anything like his video selfies, it’s no wonder he creeped them out.

I’m one of those who’ve long bemoaned the publicity mass murderers get, which in turn makes more of these thwarted losers want to commit murder to get their fifteen minutes of fame. “I wanna see my smiling face on the cover of the Rolling Stone”? That would be Tsarnev, the Boston Marathon bomber, who wound up exactly there. Make the cover ofTime or Newsweek? The monsters of Columbine and Virginia Tech did. Other losers were apparently inspired to follow their example.

Maybe the world SHOULD see this latest aberration’s YouTube videos, to see what kind of thwarted loser does things like this.

But, instead, we’ll hear demands for gun bans and lower-capacity magazines. Like that impaired this one: early reports are that he had three “high-capacity” 9mm pistols and some forty loaded magazines, all of California-compliant ten-round capacity.

I wonder how many will overlook the most glaringly obvious lesson of this atrocity: That the slaughter of the innocent stopped as soon as the perpetrator met lawfully-armed resistance.

  • Edited May 27, 2014 3:00 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host5/27/14 2:32 PM 
To: All  (7 of 33) 
 1203.7 in reply to 1203.6 

The Difficulty in Predicting Deadly Intentions

May 27, 2014 (AP)

Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes. Sandy Hook school attacker Adam Lanza. And now Elliot Rodger.

All were young loners with no criminal history who went on shooting sprees, leaving devastated families in their wake.

Mass murderers tend to have a history of pent-up frustration and failures, are socially isolated and vengeful, blaming others for their unhappiness, experts say.

"They all display deluded thinking and a lot of rage about feeling so marginalized," James Garbarino, a professor of psychology at Loyola University Chicago, said in an email.

Since mass killings are rare, scholars say there's no way to predict who has deadly intentions, let alone who will reach a breaking point and take action.

Past violence is a clue, but in Rodger's case, police did not see him as a threat to himself or others during a welfare check weeks before Friday night's rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara that left six victims dead and 13 injured.

Rodger died of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head after a shootout with deputies, ending a night of terror in this tight-knit seaside campus community as the semester drew to a close.

Pinpointing a mass killer "is not an exact science. We don't have a foolproof way of predicting" who will turn violent, said Risdon Slate, a professor of criminology at Florida Southern College.

Before Rodger stabbed three male UCSB students in his apartment and cruised around in his black BMW firing at sorority girls and strangers, he left a trail of YouTube videos and a 140-page manifesto ranting against women and couples and lamenting his lack of a sex life.

In his postings, Rodger, a 22-year-old community college student and son of a Hollywood director, said he was a lonely and frustrated virgin.

"I'm sexually attracted to girls. But girls are not sexually attracted to me. And there's a major problem with that — a major problem. That's a problem that I intend to rectify. I in all my magnificence and power, I will not let this fly. It's an injustice that needs to be dealt with," Rodger said in one of the videos.

Recent mass shootings involved young men described as loners who had trouble fitting in.

In July 2012, 24-year-old Holmes opened fire at a midnight screening of a Batman film, killing a dozen moviegoers. Five months later, 20-year-old Lanza shot 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

Experts who study mass murderers say the vast majority of lonely and angry people don't commit violence, which makes it difficult to know who will snap.

"We can point to all the warning signs we missed. But they're yellow flags. They're not red flags until blood is spilled," said James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University who has written several books on mass murders.

Before the killings, Rodger's mother became alarmed about bizarre videos he posted and alerted authorities in April. But Rodger was able to convince deputies that he was not a risk to himself or others — conditions that would have allowed them to take him into custody under California law.

Family friend Simon Astaire said Rodger was "very much a boy of solitude" who spoke few words.

"We can point to all the warning signs we missed. But they're yellow flags. They're not red flags until blood is spilled," said James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University who has written several books on mass murders.

Before the killings, Rodger's mother became alarmed about bizarre videos he posted and alerted authorities in April. But Rodger was able to convince deputies that he was not a risk to himself or others — conditions that would have allowed them to take him into custody under California law.

Family friend Simon Astaire said Rodger was "very much a boy of solitude" who spoke few words.

"At a Christmas party, I went out to get air and there he was standing alone. I apologized for disturbing his peace, and he said it was all right. I asked, 'How are you doing?' He said, 'I find things difficult.' I walked away thinking that he was very sad lonely boy," Astaire told The Associated Press.

In his writings, Rodger said he had seen several therapists throughout his life, but it's unclear what he was being treated for.

Experts say people with mental illness generally are not more violent than the rest of the population. A rare exception was Jared Loughner, who fatally shot six people in Arizona in 2011 in an attack that gravely injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. After his arrest, Loughner was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

On Sunday, several security guards stood watch outside the apartment building where Rodger lived. Memorials sprung up there, outside the sorority house where two coeds were shot nearby and at a deli where a male student was shot.

The university planned a memorial Tuesday afternoon at Harder Stadium on the 21,685-student campus to mourn and remember the six who were killed. The day's classes were canceled.

Garrett Schneider, a 22-year-old student studying physical anthropology and linguistics, was touched by the tragedy, but he said he won't view fellow students with more suspicion because of it.

"I figure people like this are far and few between," he said. "If you read his writing and look at his videos, it's obvious that he's far out there."

ABC News video
Did police miss chance to stop Santa Barbara killer?

  • Edited May 27, 2014 2:57 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host5/29/14 10:47 PM 
To: All  (8 of 33) 
 1203.8 in reply to 1203.7 

Gun Control Can’t End Evil
by Genevieve Wood
May 29, 2014

Mass shootings in southern California last week are bringing up many of the same arguments the country heard after similar atrocities in Columbine, Aurora, and, more recently, Newtown.

“We need more gun control and background checks.”

“We need more money and leeway for our mental health system to catch these people in advance.”

“We should shame and regulate the entertainment industry and video game producers who showcase and glamorize violence in their products.”

These all raise worthy points — some more worthy than others. But we could do all the above — pass more gun control laws, increase the power of the mental health system, ban violence in Hollywood—and bad things still will happen.

We are never going to be able to pass enough laws or ban enough items to stop evil from happening. People do bad things — and guns, mental illness, and violent video games aren’t always to blame. There are times when the only explanation is that the person acted on his evil desires and intentions. We don’t have all the facts yet in this case, and understandably many people believe the killer must have been crazy because, “Who else would do such a terrible thing?” But what if the killer’s failure was one of conscience, not of mental health?

Could the explanation be that he allowed himself to be overtaken by his own self-centeredness, jealousy and hatred of others?

Of course, Americans need to discuss these matters and debate how to make our communities safer and how to prevent such atrocities before they happen. But we can’t ignore the moral dimension — although we usually do following such horrific incidents.

That’s a problem, because if we pretend evil doesn’t exist, or don’t dare mention it for fear of being politically incorrect, or pass off every bad person as someone who was mentally ill or had bad parents or watched too much violence on TV, or any combination of those, we lull ourselves into thinking more laws will end violence. We come to believe that once we’ve passed enough laws, “never again,” will be a reality — until violence does happen again.

The horrific massacre in California would not have been stopped by more gun laws. The killer used handguns he had purchased legally over the past year — not an assault weapon. There is no evidence any of the gun restrictions proposed in Congress last year would have prevented Friday’s shooting.

Three of the victims were killed by a knife. The killer also rammed in to others with his car — thankfully, no one was killed by his vehicle but they certainly could have been. We already have laws against stabbing people and running over people. Are we now going to ban knives and cars?

Our second president, John Adams, said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” He was right. People are not angels. Laws are necessary. But we delude ourselves if we think they will banish all evil from the world.

  • Edited October 4, 2014 6:34 pm  by  EdGlaze

From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host6/29/14 10:18 PM 
To: All  (9 of 33) 
 1203.9 in reply to 1203.8 

Gun-Control Advocate:
Snowden, Obamacare Hurt Our Cause

16 Jun 14

Since the Newtown massacre, Mark Glaze has been the face of the gun-control movement. The executive director of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Mr. Glaze led the futile 2013 fight for expanded background checks and has been regular on cable news after each successive mass shooting.

Now Mark Glaze, 43 years old, has stepped away from the fight. Friday marked his last day working for Mr. Bloomberg’s organization, now called Everytown for Gun Safety, after three and a half years as executive director.

In an interview at his organization’s Washington office earlier this month, Mr. Glaze expounded on how President Barack Obama’s unrelated political problems — health care, Edward Snowden, congressional gridlock — damaged the gun-control cause.

And Mr. Glaze said the movement hasn’t solved one of its signature problems: Many mass shootings wouldn’t have been stopped by tighter regulations proposed  by gun-control advocates, even if they might have prevented other gun crimes.

The Obama administration bungling its rollout of the Affordable Care Act website made any effort to enact gun control in the future even less likely.

“There’s an almost perfect overlap, I think, between the people who are the most active and radicalized gun voters and people who just don’t like and trust the government very much. When you take on the gun issue, you’re forced to take on by proxy a much bigger issue in this country, which is a deeply ingrained distrust of government that gets worse every time the government can’t get a healthcare website off the ground or can’t get it’s act together to pass a farm bill.”

Surveillance activities exposed by Mr. Snowden are also not helpful.

“The fact that people have learned that the government has taken for itself the right to listen in on our most private conversations has done nothing to inspire faith in government restraint. It’s that lack of faith in government restraint that makes it difficult to do things like ask everybody to take a background check.”

The most attention on gun control comes after mass shootings — just look at the post-Newtown push and the brief attention paid to the issue after the Memorial Day weekend shootings in Isla Vista, Calif. Yet virtually none of the solutions gun-control groups are pushing would have prevented any of the massacres that capture public attention.

“Because people perceive a mismatch in the policy solutions that we have to offer and the way some of these mass shootings happened, you know, it is a messaging problem for us, I think. … Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing that we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure it’s a challenge in this issue.”

Before Newtown, the pre-eminent gun control player in Washington was the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But Mr. Bloomberg’s organization now has more money and Americans for Responsible Solutions, or ARS — launched by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.) — has more star power. It still hasn’t been enough to beat back the National Rifle Association.

“The NRA has a much vaunted, if overhyped political operation. But again, when we came to this the only support that members of congress got when they took a tough vote was a note of thanks from the Brady Campaign, and that’s really not enough. I think [Mr. Bloomberg] with his super PAC, ARS with their political operation and lots of voters who we think are starting to pay attention to this more than they have in the past.”

After the post-Newtown urgency, the timeline for reform is now much longer. Mr. Glaze spoke in terms of multiple election cycles before it would be realistic to think Congress would act.

“The federal picture will change when legislators come to understand that we are here to stay. … I think it will take an election cycle or two to understand that there are new players in town and they are free to do what they know in their hearts are the right thing and what 80 to 90% of their constituents want. You can’t defy political gravity forever.”


From: EdGlaze DelphiPlus Member Icon Posted by host4/7/15 9:58 AM 
To: All  (10 of 33) 
 1203.10 in reply to 1203.9 

Greg Gutfeld:
Gun control losing because Americans refuse to feel guilty over self-defense

4 Apr 2015

On April 3, Fox News’ host Greg Gutfeld explained that the media’s gun control arguments increasingly fall on deaf ears because Americans refuse to feel guilty over using guns for self-defense.

Gutfeld said, “No matter how hard the establishment media tries, they can’t convince good people how bad guns are when they’re in the right hands.”

He then explained that the American people, while supportive of the police, have simply come to realize that there are long seconds — and frequently, agonizing minutes &,dash; between the time they dial 911 and the time police arrive. Moreover, he stressed that Americans understand that in many instances the police will only be coming to count bodies — that any defense that is going to happen has to happen before badges, handcuffs, or sirens are on the scene.

Gutfeld suggested the gun control media’s inability to understand these things has only placed greater distance between their esoteric arguments and the American people. He said:

Perhaps the media misses the big point. They do their theorizing from the fish bowl of a well-protected studio and travel to and from work at reasonable hours through tiny neighborhoods in secure vehicles. The fine people of Detroit don’t have that luxury; they realize that any argument against arming yourself is full of holes, which is not the way they’d like to end up being.

Empirical support for Gutfeld’s claims can be seen in the pro-gun attitude taking hold in Detroit’s heavily black community right now. Breitbart News recently reported that concealed carry is surging in the black community, and no less a prominent figure than Detroit Police Chief James Craig explained that this is a seismic shift from how things have been historically.

In a tone similar to Gutfeld’s, Craig explained that Detroit residents have simply come to realize that good guys with guns really can protect their own lives and the lives of their neighbors. They have also realized that being armed helps bring stability to their community.

In the real world, these realizations are drowning out anything that gun controllers might say to the contrary.


Navigate this discussion: 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-33
Adjust text size:
Using a mobile device? Switch to the Mobile Site.

Welcome, guest! Get more out of Delphi Forums by logging in.

New to Delphi Forums? You can log in with your Facebook, Twitter, or Google account or use the New Member Login option and log in with any email address.

Home | Help | Forums | Chat | Blogs | Advertising | Membership Plans
© Delphi Forums LLC All rights reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Service.