General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by RRW

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...ervice/1266589

Kind of reminds me of another story that happened a few weeks ago, also in Florida (at a gas station, a man shot at a group of teens who were being loud and obnoxious, and later claimed that he thought he saw one of them display a gun at him)

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by RRW

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...ervice/1266589

Wow, shot twice and went home in the same night after being treated at the hospital.

Police did their job and the CCW abuser will be charged, lose his CCW permit, and probably become a felon, which means no more guns for him.
That's what our laws do if they're enforced properly.
I believe it was Ithekro who already stated here that a major problem in the US is also that our gun laws aren't enforced by the government.

And I would submit that there is evidence to suggest corrupt policies such as Operation Gunwalker (George Bush Jr.) and Fast & Furious (Obama) expose either very poor judgement on the parts of both administrations or a "problem, crisis, solution" hegelian style technique to push for more gun control.

There are also numerous incidents where the law has saved lives and stopped crimes in progress.

Hillsborough teen kills dad to protect mom, investigators say
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/2...ing-his-mother

Deputies: Homeowner shoots home invader near UCF
http://www.webcitation.org/6Bx0rp9mL

Undercover detective shoots, kills robbery suspect
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/...obbery-suspect

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

There are also numerous incidents where the law has saved lives and stopped crimes in progress.

Hillsborough teen kills dad to protect mom, investigators say
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/2...ing-his-mother

Deputies: Homeowner shoots home invader near UCF
http://www.webcitation.org/6Bx0rp9mL

Undercover detective shoots, kills robbery suspect
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/...obbery-suspect

Of course. But everyone needs to accept that the more firearms there are in circulation, the more you'll get both types of stories. More people will protect themselves from aggressors, and more people will become aggressors under the mistaken pretense of self-defense. Such things already happen, but throwing firearms into the mix ups the level of damage that can be done.

The big debate - and something that we can't answer - is what the net gain comes from. If we get rid of guns, lives will be lost and injuries will occur that might not otherwise have happened if firearms were more prevalent; if we make firearms more prevalent, lives will be lost and injuries will occur that might not otherwise have happened if there were less firearms to go around. There's no perfect solution, and it's even possible that it really doesn't matter what we do - the deaths and injuries might be the same regardless of the course of action with firearms. But assuming they're not, which one prevents the most deaths and injuries?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Of course. But everyone needs to accept that the more firearms there are in circulation, the more you'll get both types of stories. More people will protect themselves from aggressors, and more people will become aggressors under the mistaken pretense of self-defense. Such things already happen, but throwing firearms into the mix ups the level of damage that can be done.

The big debate - and something that we can't answer - is what the net gain comes from. If we get rid of guns, lives will be lost and injuries will occur that might not otherwise have happened if firearms were more prevalent; if we make firearms more prevalent, lives will be lost and injuries will occur that might not otherwise have happened if there were less firearms to go around. There's no perfect solution, and it's even possible that it really doesn't matter what we do - the deaths and injuries might be the same regardless of the course of action with firearms. But assuming they're not, which one prevents the most deaths and injuries?

I already posted how violent crime is going down and is at a sixty year low.
Mr. Dj, showed here how mass shootings are in decline.
So the number of these stories are obviously starting to decline.
The false assumption that the more guns the more there will be stories about shootings is nonsense.

Why aren't there thousands of stories every day about gun violence?
There are 80,000,000 gun owners and 310,000,000 legally purchased guns that we know of that were sold through NICS after the pre-Brady Bill (1993).
The actual number of firearms in the US is completely unknown.
So for there to be so few incidents when there are more guns and gun owners than any statistics can tell us (after the GCA of 68, most gun owners will not answer truthfully or at all on census surveys for fear of confiscation in the future) shows just how responsible the VAST majority of gun owners are.
Even if you factor in all of the gun-related crime 12,000 last year (I don't count suicide because it's not a crime against another person), compare that to the 80,000,000 guns owners and that is what, less than .00015% of them?
The comparison with England is BS because we have more gun owners than they have population in the whole friggin country.
The population of the UK is 63,000,000 people, in a very tightly knit culture that doesn't border a drug-cartel capitol of the world.
Canada's population (as of 2011) is only 35,000,000 people, in an area nearly as big as the US.
They don't border Mexico, or have the level of drug gangs we have.
The population of Australia is only 23,000,000 people as of 2011, and they are like Canada (no offense) in that they have no border with a drug-Cartel infested warzone.
To compare any one of those countries to the United States, which is a country of 312,000,000 people, 20,000,000 of which came from Mexico illegally to escape the horror there, is totally disengenous and it needs to stop.
The US is NOT the UK, or Canada, or Australian.
Hell, it isn't even Germany, which also has a population that is far lower than ours: 81,726,000 as of 2011.
You want to compare a country that is similar to the US?
Try Russia at 141,000,000, and their violent crime rate is 5 times that of the United States.
Why, because the Russian mafia is so nasty that it would make the Mexican drug lords piss themselves with fear.
Russia also borders many Arab countries that have considerable gang and/or organized criminal elements.
They have both a drug and alcohol problem in Russia, and they are as violent as Americans, if not more.
Culturally, we in the US have far more in common with the Russians than we do the Commonwealth or even Europeans.

There are more guns being sold than ever before in this country.
The "assault weapons" ban is no more, and there are more CCW holders and castle doctrines in more states than in the 1990s when laws restricting firearms were at an all time high and so was violent crime.
A pattern is emerging from all of this that Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America shows quite clearly.
More responsible gun owners does in fact reduce crime.
Also, this idea that citizens shouldn't own military style weapons is complete bollocks.
As soon as the gun-control freaks start de-militarizing the police then they can start talking about "assault rifles" and "high-cap" mags.
It isn't hard to see through the facade of what people like Feinstein want.
They know from their own experience (especially her) that the only thing that protects you from criminals in the US is a gun, which is why she has one in addition to her armed private security.

We already know what the US will look like if there is an attempt at a gun ban.
All we have to do is look south of the border into Mexico.

Larry Pratt takes Piers Morgan to task, and well:

If the video link doesn't work, you can watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FVQg...ature=youtu.be

I should also add that some people in Australia aren't exactly happy with the ban on firearms there:

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I already posted how violent crime is going down and is at a sixty year low.
Mr. Dj, showed here how mass shootings are in decline.
So the number of these stories are obviously starting to decline.
The false assumption that the more guns the more there will be stories about shootings is nonsense.

Well, contrary to what you wrote later in your post about more guns being sold than ever, gun ownership is on the decline (according to self-reporting) in the country. Depending on which poll and factors you choose to look at, it's at an all-time low. I'm fairly certain that you will claim that there's no relation between the two (edit for clarity: gun ownership and mass shootings; I already have data indicating that household gun ownership isn't related to violent crime). I have no problem admitting that you could be correct to make that claim, it's just that I've seen a lot of other data that supports the idea that there is a link between prevalence of guns in the community and gun-related violence.

And isn't that an obvious, logical assumption to make? Put more cars on the road and you can expect to have more car accidents. Put more guns out among the population, and you can expect that more guns are going to be used.

And I mean no offense in saying this, but you're clearly biased toward guns, and it shows in your arguments and interpretation of data. I know you mean well, but it's a bit frustrating to see such a one-sided take on things, particularly because your knowledge and expertise would be quite useful. For my part, I admit personal bias toward reducing needless deaths and injuries. If I saw data which supported the notion that "an armed society is a polite society," I would be all for arming more people and making firearms training more prevalent. You've posted a lot of anecdotal stories in the past, but even a few hundred anecdotal stories doesn't compare with statistics made up of tens of thousands of incidents. I don't know how you can dismiss the data so readily.

[synaesthetic]

One of the problems I have with the pro-ban side's argument is that their arguments tend to boil down to, "but, but... they're guns!"

It gets really, really exhausting having to repeatedly explain over and over again that they are tools with legitimate uses, some of which save lives in a crisis. They aren't magical engines of death and destruction. They are not a cursed sword that infects its wielder with bloodlust and a thirst for carnage.

They're just a tool. You can't blame a tool for what people do. The intent has to come from something with agency, something with intelligence and sentience.

For fuck's sake I'm getting tired of saying this over and over again. GundamFan may be biased, but everyone else is biased too--in the other direction. Nobody can seem to think clearly about the issue and it's getting frustrating in the extreme.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

One of the problems I have with the pro-ban side's argument is that their arguments tend to boil down to, "but, but... they're guns!"

Then you're not reading my posts or looking at the data I mention. I'm open to other interpretations of the data, and I am always open to new data. Anecdotal stories are nice, but don't carry much worth.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It gets really, really exhausting having to repeatedly explain over and over again that they are tools with legitimate uses, some of which save lives in a crisis. They aren't magical engines of death and destruction. They are not a cursed sword that infects its wielder with bloodlust and a thirst for carnage.

The same could be said for nuclear power. Do you support giving nuclear capabilities to every country? It doesn't magically become a nuclear weapon, nor do nuclear weapons magically launch themselves.

(For what it's worth, I wish we'd lighten up on our nuclear restrictions - but the reasoning doesn't carry over to guns.)

A gun has perfectly legitimate uses that don't harm anyone; they can also be used to save people. Question: is one life saved by a gun a worthwhile tradeoff if ten lives were taken by a gun? This is what the issue becomes. Are more lives being saved by guns, or would more lives be saved by limiting or removing guns? The data isn't entirely clear. If it were, there wouldn't be an argument to be had.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

For fuck's sake I'm getting tired of saying this over and over again. GundamFan may be biased, but everyone else is biased too--in the other direction. Nobody can seem to think clearly about the issue and it's getting frustrating in the extreme.

Everyone is biased in their own ways, but the opinions are not as black and white as you're making them out to be. I would caution against trying to make this a black and white type of issue, with black and white opinions.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

For fuck's sake I'm getting tired of saying this over and over again. GundamFan may be biased, but everyone else is biased too--in the other direction. Nobody can seem to think clearly about the issue and it's getting frustrating in the extreme.

I think the opposite portrayal can be just as frustrating. The false equivalence of guns with things like cars and computers is not a really good way to start a conversation on gun control. I wouldn't say that guns are evil or are completely useless, but I will not accept this interpretation of them either.

As Ledgem says, you cannot paint what people here are saying in such black and white terms.

[NorthernFallout]

Just stumbled across this essay http://www.xojane.com/issues/on-blac...now-to-be-true

HOW A GUN-LOVING WEST TEXAS GIRL LEARNED TO FEAR ASSAULT WEAPONS
For every outraged indigence about "trampling" on the second amendment, with every word and breath, I am that young woman again, sitting in her truck in a parking lot, alone except for a 911 operator.

I found it greatly thought provoking and interesting from several perspectives, especially in the interest of the recent assault weapon discussion. Not using it as an argument, mind, but I think it fits in the thread.

[monir]

What I've got out of this thread for why guns are needed can be summed up in one word: Fear.

The amount of things we are afraid of as Americans range from so many things, but when the need for gun is brought up, the fear is always from another person. That person could be a thief, a burglar, a robber, a rapist, a killer, a mass murderer, a drug dealer, a communist, a socialist, a Obama, a zombie, and etc.. As an American myself, it is very difficult for me to admit, but our culture is indeed based on all sorts of fear. I don't care how many gun laws (33000 nationwide and counting) and bans we impose on ourselves, it won't change anything. Our problems are much more deep-rooted and to understand those problems, just look at what makes us fear.

People buy guns because they are empowering and work as a coping mechanism against the so many many things they fear. It's pretty much the same as buying insurance. People aren't buying guns because of the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arm. People are also invoking the 2nd Amendment vehemently not because every one of those Americans passionately want to uphold every words our Constitution guarantees. Fuck no! This is a country which allowed slavery to continue for about 90 years after it was founded on the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It took a civil war for us to get out of slavery. Even after the bloodiest civil war which claimed more American lives than any other war America will ever engage in from there on, the remnant of slavery persisted more than a hundred years. It's been just over a 3 decades where the idea of segregation of any form might be unproductive is slowly sinking in our culture.

We won't solve our gun related violence by banning guns or by arming every person in the United States. We won't solve our mass-killing problem by pretending that only the mass shooters were mentally ill. What about every person that will go on to kill another person by the end of this day... whether it is domestic violence, robbery, gang violence, or whatever form of killing that will take place today? These mass shooters were so mentally sick and yet they were capable of engaging in meticulous planning of how to carry out these atrocious acts to inflict maximum destruction of human lives.....???? The guy in Colorado prepared for at least 3 months. The guy in Virginia Tech thought to close the door from inside before he started to shoot. This guy in Connecticut made sure he didn't leave any trail in his room. He even destroyed the hard drive in his personal computer.

The point pretty much is these mass shooters aren't the only sick people in our society. We all are. We also know that there is already another such person who has made up his/her mind to kill a lot of people, and working on a plan how to carry out such atrocity. I just sincerely hope and pray to god that we come together earnestly to tackle this problem and eliminate it all together. I don't have any children of my own yet, but I want to have them. And when I do, I don't want to wonder whether or not I will get to see my kids at the end of the day. I don't want to live in fear.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I just think it's a bit silly to claim that "hoplophobes" are afraid of guns because they think that humanity is terrible, when many people who desire a gun and think it's good protective feel that way because they want to protect themselves from other people.

It's all a matter of perspective, though I think it's more accurate to say that one side seems to think that the part of humanity that are armed or want to be armed are terrible, while the other side want to be protected from the terrible ones.

Put another way, "hoplophobes" may be afraid of the evil that people with guns can perpetuate, but the people who want to arm themselves with guns for protection fear the exact same thing. The only difference is in the conclusion that each side reaches with regard to how best to protect themselves.

Pretty much, though I'd say the pro-side (at least for me) recognizes and includes the evil that people can perpetuate period, with or without firearms.

[Ithekro]

Obama demands 'concrete proposals' on gun violence by January

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...nce-by-january

President Barack Obama empaneled a new task force led by Vice President Joe Biden to develop comprehensive proposals to address gun violence no later than next month.

In the wake of last week's shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., the president announced a new initiative that would include members of his cabinet and outside organizations to generate proposals to rein in gun violence. He said that any effort should include new restrictions on guns, but also improved access to mental health services and better management of violence in popular culture.


Obama vowed that the new task force would not be just another Washington commission, shorthand for the groups sometimes tasked with studying an issue or event but which often delay or dilute solutions long past the time when the original impetus for such a panel has passed.




Obama said he had asked Biden "to lead an effort that includes members of my cabinet and outside organizations to come up with a set of concrete proposals, no later than January," which the president would then push "without delay."


"This is not some Washington commission. This is not something where folks are going to be studying the issue for six months and publishing a report that gets read, and then pushed aside," the president said. "This is a team that has a very specific task: to pull together real reforms, right now."


Obama expressed support -- restating the position of his press secretary, Jay Carney -- for certain gun measures, including the assault weapons ban, limits on ammunition and closing a loophole allowing gun buyers to elude background checks at gun shows. But he stressed that those were only components of a broader effort to address violence.


The president suggested that stakeholders in those deliberations could possibly include the National Rifle Association -- the gun rights group that had gone silent in the wake of the Newtown shooting, but will hold a press conference on Friday. The president argued that mothers and fathers who compose the NRA's membership had also been impacted by the Newtown shooting.

"Their task is going to be to sift through every good idea that's out there, and even take a look at some bad ideas before disposing of them," Obama said of the task force's efforts.

Already, Democrats on Capitol Hill have started to initiate some gun control efforts in the aftermath of Newtown. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Wednesday for Republicans to bring up a vote on high-capacity ammunition magazines by this weekend. And West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D, introduced legislation to study the impact of violent video games on children.

Additionally, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she'll bring up a bill to reinstate the lapsed ban on assault weapons of the first day of the next Congress.

Few Republicans have stepped forward to embrace any of these gun measures, though, and have focused instead on the need for improved mental health services, or school safety.

Obama said his task force's proposals would make up part of his State of the Union address, and he expressed hope that the searing images from last week's shooting in Connecticut would last in the public conscious and help advance his eventual proposals.

"I would hope that our memories aren't so short that what we saw in Newtown isn't lingering with us -- that we don't remain passionate about it, only a month later," he said.

Hmmmmmm

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Blah, blah, If you actually want to debate the issue, the gun control thread is very much alive and active.

As long as it keeps spilling over here and the moderators do nothing, I will continue to answer over here.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

However a gun can be effective without firing a shot. An intruder can be scared off by the sound of a shotgun action being cycled. even if that action is not attached to the weapon.

Sorry to say it but you are deceiving yourself. Once two people draw their guns either one or both of them is going to get wounded, perhaps killed. IRL there is no such thing as "I will hit his hand/gun with one well placed shot" or "I will shot only to incapacitate him".

If your example is about scaring a would be burglar from your home with your gun, the house where I (and most people around) live is made of stone and you can't break in trough the windows, I sleep soundly at night even tough I have heard rounds of automatic gunfire at least once (and semi and gun shots God only knows how many times). No, I do not own any guns at all to "protect" myself and I feel I have more real life reasons than most to own one.

[synaesthetic]

Banning 30-round magazines and violent video games won't do a goddamn thing. This whole incident is absurd.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Looks like Obama is gong for broke. It's his last term anyway, why not?

Healthcare, Gun Control, and State based marijuana legalization. It's a pity economy is getting sidelined for them though. The next 4 years is going to be wild.

I have a feeling Obama decided that the gun lobby isn't strong enough anymore to decide policy. Time will tell if he is right.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Looks like Obama is gong for broke. It's his last term anyway, why not?

Healthcare, Gun Control, and State based marijuana legalization. It's a pity economy is getting sidelined for them though. The next 4 years is going to be wild.

I have a feeling Obama decided that the gun lobby isn't strong enough anymore to decide policy. Time will tell if he is right.

Actually, I think the primary determining factor here would be the house republicans, and to a lesser extent the senate, as the president can't enact new laws by himself.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Actually, I think the primary determining factor here would be the house republicans, and to a lesser extent the senate, as the president can't enact new laws by himself.

Frankly I didn't even know Obama was even going to touch gun laws until this morning. I expected it to be a political hot potato that no one wanted to deal with. The fact that Obama even bring it up at all was a surprise to me. I mean, it's not like Americans haven't been used to school shootings by now. Dead children has been accepted politically, so I thought.

[kyp275]

Naw, it's too hot to NOT deal with, at least superficially. Whether anything actually happens however, is another matter entirely. The rest of your post... I'll let someone else tackle that one.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Well, contrary to what you wrote later in your post about more guns being sold than ever, gun ownership is on the decline (according to self-reporting) in the country. Depending on which poll and factors you choose to look at, it's at an all-time low.

Interesting piece at TheMonkeyCage.
However, as with all statistics on this issue, it doesn't give us a good picture of what is actually out there because we don't have enough data since many gun owners stopped admitting to owning guns after 1968. There were millions (tens of-, or hundreds of-, depending on whose data you look at) of firearms that were sold prior to the NICS in 1993.

Here is the gallup information on the current trends in firearm owners:
Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/se...hest-1993.aspx

The Census bureau's information is similar to the FBI's NICS, but they have the raw numbers which shows an interesting tidbit.

According to the 1950 Census, the US had a population of about 150,697,361

According to the 2010 Census, the US had a population of about 308,745,538

Gunonwership was 50% in 1950 (of 150,697,361) or about 75,348,680.

Gunowership went up to 33 % (2010 Census figures) to 102,915,179, so about 27,566,499 MORE people than in 1950 even if the percentage of the total population is less, the number of gun owners is actually more.
And that is not counting for people who refuse to expose they have guns.

However, we could play the numbers game all day and get a multitude of different results, that's the problem with statistics, they give a general idea of reality but can be very wrong at times, especially when dealing with this kind of issue.

I'm fairly certain that you will claim that there's no relation between the two (edit for clarity: gun ownership and mass shootings; I already have data indicating that household gun ownership isn't related to violent crime). I have no problem admitting that you could be correct to make that claim, it's just that I've seen a lot of other data that supports the idea that there is a link between prevalence of guns in the community and gun-related violence.

And John Lott has oodles of data that will show otherwise and we'll spend hours upon hours posting back and forth and getting nowhere fast.

And isn't that an obvious, logical assumption to make? Put more cars on the road and you can expect to have more car accidents. Put more guns out among the population, and you can expect that more guns are going to be used.

Depends on the drivers.
Besides, this issue is about homicide, not accidents by car.

And I mean no offense in saying this, but you're clearly biased toward guns, and it shows in your arguments and interpretation of data. I know you mean well, but it's a bit frustrating to see such a one-sided take on things, particularly because your knowledge and expertise would be quite useful. For my part, I admit personal bias toward reducing needless deaths and injuries. If I saw data which supported the notion that "an armed society is a polite society," I would be all for arming more people and making firearms training more prevalent. You've posted a lot of anecdotal stories in the past, but even a few hundred anecdotal stories doesn't compare with statistics made up of tens of thousands of incidents. I don't know how you can dismiss the data so readily.

You know I don't ususally take things you say personally, and I do my best not to insult you Legem.
Even though we may ruffle each others feathers now and then, that's what debate is about.

Am I one sided?
No.
Why do I say that?
Because I'm willing to do what I know works and oppose what I know doesn't work.
Meaning that I've been in the fight about gun control since 1993.
After Lon Haruchi shot Vicki Weaver in the head while holding her 9th month old baby, that's when I woke up.
The murder of the 17 children in Waco by the BATF just added fire to my anger.

And it was the same EXACT congressmen and senators back then that allowed Clinton's administration to perform these atrocities, that called for the 1994 "assault weapon" ban, and "high-cap" ban.
They didn't give one shit about the children or that innocent mother back then, why should I believe them now?
They are fucking liars who have an agenda, and they will use any crisis they can to push it.

So you ask, why I am so adamant about opposing Feinstein's bill? Or any ban? Because I know that the reasons the old bitch are giving on TV aren't true. If they were, she'd have called for the demilitarization of the police decades ago.

[cut]

Originally Posted by monir

What I've got out of this thread for why guns are needed can be summed up in one word: Fear.

I don't know of any gun owner that has fear.
Vigiiance, yes.
Fear, no.
Anger about how we are treated?
Yes.
Fear, no.
Frustration at the media and politicians for lying through their damn teeth about this issue?
Yes.
Fear. no.
Tired of having to listen to people who want someone else to protect them when the responsibility lies with the individual?
Yes.
Fear. no.

Maybe you're afraid monir, but I'm not, and have never purchased a weapon out of fear.
Owning a weapon for self defense is just common sense, nothing more, nothing less.
Even Dianne Feinstein knows that, which is why she carries a weapon.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Obama demands 'concrete proposals' on gun violence by January


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...nce-by-january

Hmmmmmm

Obama needs to go back to smoking pot, and chillax.
He's got the blood of 178 children on his head for ording the drone strikes in Pakistan, he doesn't have much room to talk.

Oh yeah, that's going to go over big.
Maybe he can start by not selling any more weapons to the Mexican drug gangs.
If this is more than just him pandering to his base, then he could actually start a civil war.
However, on the bright side, at least all the hoplophobes will feel safe while they have to go through check-points, cavity searches, house searches, round-ups, black outs, and all the other "fun" stuff that will happen.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Looks like Obama is gong for broke. It's his last term anyway, why not?

Healthcare, Gun Control, and State based marijuana legalization. It's a pity economy is getting sidelined for them though. The next 4 years is going to be wild.

I have a feeling Obama decided that the gun lobby isn't strong enough anymore to decide policy. Time will tell if he is right.

Yeah, we're gonna party like it's 1859.

Sheila Jackson Lee certainly wants to "get it on" and boy if this doesn't expose how this horrible tragedy is being used for a political purpose, I don't know what will.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to America: Turn in your guns
http://www.examiner.com/article/rep-...turn-your-guns

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Sheila Jackson Lee certainly wants to "get it on" and boy if this doesn't expose how this horrible tragedy is being used for a political purpose, I don't know what will.

At some point no matter how tragic, if it happens often enough it becomes routine.

Has there ever NOT been a mass school shooting during a President's term?