trying to shoot a (maybe charging) mountain lion without at least some prior experience seems pretty low percentage, you might as well get something that makes a helluva loud noise instead (also if you ever come across a mountain lion, pick up your dog to not have him be a small target)

that "guns on the property" thing made me remember this old article of a company selling weapons (made non-functional) to movie/TV productions and stuff : This Is the Massive NYC Gun Depot Where Weapons Are Stored for TV Shows & Movies | TheBlaze.com

Well ya, the gun making the loud noise is kind of the idea, with the secondary function of putting bullets in something close range in a really worst case scenario.

Just strictly as a public service, I think someone needs to explain to every person in this country what semi-automatic means. I've seen plenty of folks I respect and consider intelligent, with whom I fundamentally agree, ruin a well-thought out argument, because they haven't taken the time to learn what they're ranting about.

A semi-automatic weapon fires a single shot, and then automatically reloads a single shot. The term 'semi-automatic' does not refer to the rate of fire in any way, it refers to the ability of a firearm to reload itself, specifically through the force of recoil or gas. There are Civil War era revolvers that are nearly semi-automatic. The $10 nail gun I bought from WalMart could be semi-automatic.

I think there is some degree of fear mongering going on here. In this particular school shooting for example, dude had what could be termed a semi-automatic Bushmaster Assault Rifle, which looks and sounds absolutely terrifying, and positively deadly....but you could just as easily say it was a single-shot .22 rifle with a big clip, made out of plastic, and specifically chambered for shooting only sporting rounds. A bagfull of guns with small magazines is just as deadly as any 'semi-automatic assault rifle', and nearly every one of these tragedies involves multiple guns. As far as devastation and damage goes, everybody over 18 can and will likely remain forever able to buy shotguns that would put any assault rifle to shame, designed specifically for killin', without any sort of check or license necessary.

"Banning assault rifles" as decisive and dramatic as it sounds would only effectively serve to limit the size of certain rifle magazines and cosmetic features, which certainly isn't going to hurt anybody, and I'm not fundamentally against it, but realistically it doesn't really solve all that much of anything either. If we banned assault rifles today, I could probably go buy that exact same Bushmaster .223 rifle tomorrow, it would just have a different name, and have a smaller clip in it.

This is the correct time to talk about gun control. Something like this happening is the only way there is even a chance for political will and public opinion to be strong enough to even have a national discussion about it.

And this is the right thread to do it in. Suppressing discussion on it here is ridiculous. Relegating it to the Obama thread is silly. It's not about what Obama is going to do about guns. It should be about what all of us as a nation feel about gun culture and what we can do about fixing it. And what all of our elected officials can do about it - it's not an Obama specific issue, so what is that the only place we're allowed to talk about it?

Actually, banning semi-automatics sounds like a fine idea. Make fuckers like this have to reload manually every time and they'd be a lot less dangerous.

Many people inside the US can't understand the country's fascination with guns either.

Any ban won't mean shit if they just grandfather in all the existing weapons. I think a sensible place to start would be to immediately increase taxes on ammunition to fund mental health initiatives and to eliminate the sale of large multi round magazines.

I'm not sure much else is needed beyond that, or if anything beyond that could even hope to pass.

Derringers for everyone?

So punish legitimate sportsmen for the crimes committed by a few?

Srsly?

(Sorry Ben, but there's only so much absurdity I can swallow without response)

Yeah, that sounds like a good place to start.

Great article:

Why Obama shouldn't lead fight against gun violence - CNN.com

Newtown gun regulations met with absurd resistance.

In Newtown, Conn., a Stiff Resistance to Gun Restrictions - NYTimes.com

This is one of the problems. Even the most banal regulations are fought.

I tend to agree. That's probably a bad fight for him to take on. But someone needs to lead it.

Seriously.

(cue your normal insult containing more syllables than necessary to make your point)

Nah. That's too absurd a proposal to get too worked up over. I couldn't believe anyone (outside the looniest elements of the left in Congress) actually said it with a straight face.

Now those folks, well, there's really nothing I'd put past them.

I think keeping gun control talk out of the other thread is perfectly appropriate. Gun control discussion will quickly overwhelm what that other thread is for - reporting the news, expressing our dismay and showing a little respect for what happended there.

I started this discussion here because Obama IMO will likely lead the charge to control gun ownership (I assume similar to assault weapon ban). I stated I wanted to buy one now.

In school shootings, patterns and warning signs - CNN.com

Good point-of-view on gun control. It might help slow down some of these guys, but many of these shootings use guns that were illegal already, and some of the shooters have gone to great lengths to acquire them.

I really don't think increasing taxes on ammo will help much. Eliminating the sale of large multi-round magazine may help a little (e.g. 20 rounds down to 10?). Mental health initiatives imply we can identify the "candidates" and I'm not sure thats possible.

Regardless, I agree there is a problem. I am not sure what the solution is right now, have to think through that. I do think its a good time to start the national discussion with the Obama win, the national tragedies etc.

Makes sense to me. Bottom line have the grass roots lead it. Obama will be a magnet for criticism which will distract from it. I think the mothers can do a better job.

I can't believe I am jumping in here.

I own a lot of guns, I didn't bring them with me to NY due to their staunch regulations on firearms, trust me, I would be serving Jail time here because I refuse to register my guns with the state of NY and lose my rights that I have with them in Utah. So they sit in a gun safe in Utah, with family that uses them when they ask permission.

The biggest thing to me here is society as a whole, especially the younger generation has not grown up with an appreciation for death or it is over sensationalized throughout. Think about it, I am guilty about playing a lot of the same games, but games like Black Ops played online is about upping your kill ratio...you are racking up body counts like no other. Now I am not saying that games cause the killing, I am saying it is part of the overall desensitizing of violence and such to them.

Am I in support of a weapons ban...no. Am I in support of certain regulations to make it a little tougher to get a weapon, absolutely.

But the bigger concern to me in all of the situations and Obama will not say this, even though he will reference the 4 shootings....all 4 (Well 3 so far, this 4 has yet to be determined) have had some sort of disorder with them, whether it was officially diagnosed or not. Why are we not focusing on this? Why is it that we as a country cover our eyes and not help those who need it.

Because, as I mentioned elsewhere, "help" is entirely secondary to what's really desired: protection. And deep down, most people know the most effective ways to accomplish that are pre-emptive and, honestly, probably at least bordering on unconstitutional. The majority will dance themselves to death around that reality rather than admit it.

Hell, my teenager noted the similarity in profiles between some of the more school shooters ... and then wisely noted that somewhere around 1/3rd of the kids he knows fit some aspects of that general profile.

There's a paradox between the lectures about "tolerance" and "Born This Way" and "it's okay to be different", etc etc and the reality of mental/emotional illness. And collectively, I have no confidence at all that we can manage to parse that out.

Instead, we'll see efforts to flail uselessly and unforgivably rule the day, as much in the interest of avoiding very hard truths as anything else.

Identifying the people that need this kind of help and then determining the proper way to provide that help is a complex and time consuming process. There is no sound-byte solution. People would much rather give the sound-byte answers of ban guns, ban video games, ban music, etc.

I also had additional...desensitized to violence and death argument typed up but deleted because it was getting to wordy and I wasn't going to get my point across without me wanting to hit myself with a ball peen hammer.

The least overall intrusive means to have prevented the CT shooting would have been to remove him from the streets. That's the least trampling of rights possible, affecting the fewest number of people. And isn't that really what we're on about here? Protecting the masses from the actions of a select few?

But on what grounds could he have been removed as a threat? Being, by pretty much all accounts, pretty damned odd? So far, that appears to be the most serious thing anyone could pin on him definitively ... prior to Friday.

So that seems to leave us with the question of "how odd is too odd to be left on the streets?[/i]. I can't help but recall the wisdom of an old HS teacher of mine, who was fond of saying (among other things) "Normal is just the average of all us abnormals". And I can't help but think that those "average" abnormals would be the ones left to decide who was dangerously abnormal ... because as that wise old teacher usually finished his comment "... and who wants to be 'average'?" Hell of a mess.

As I mentioned in another discussion elsewhere, whether this sequestration (or mandatory outpatient treatment as a lower level option) takes place under the auspices of the criminal justice system or some hypothetical National Mental Health Service ... it's still the same intrusion.

And yet ... my kid's FB post (which I'm assuming you saw in the other thread) tends to mute that argument, considering the enormous digital body count he's racked up since around age 5 or 6.

If you're having that great a problem distinguishing between kids in a classroom and pixels, there were issues long before anybody turned on the console.

Yes, but let me ask you this, because my kid has as well. Have you had discussions, education on a few area in regards to death, guns, violence and such?

The reason I ask this is I have, I know many others have and their kids have been able to distinguish specific things..reality vs non....Others I have had discussions with their kids didn't and they never had a frank discussion and their child had yet to experience death in the family and such.

I don't know...I think we as a society are hitting a point where the bulk in general are allowing the "electronic" baby sitter take control (Be it tv, computers or gaming systems) that people have become detached and not active within their kids lives and the extenuating circumstances we have witnessed with the killings and I think to an extent, the bullying suicides.

Yeah, I'm an asshole. It was HW, but it was '92, not '96. Bob Dole won the Asian demographic in '96, too, so both years, it's still relevant: the Republican candidate carried Asians against Clintons


The problem is twofold. On the one hand, as someone else pointed out, Cuban-Americans and Mexican-Americans are almost two different demographics. They're both Hispanic, but they're different enough that you can't simply run a Cuban-American for President and wait for Latino votes to roll in.

And then it comes back to rhetoric. An Hispanic-American who's going to be acceptable to the white male wing of the party is probably an Hispanic-American who's willing to talk the talk on illegal immigration. If said candidate is either non-committal or starts talking about amnesty/path to citizenship/etc in a primary, their candidacy is probably DOA.

You can't just run the candidate out there and expect the demographic to go "Oh, things have changed. They accept me now. Cool." You have to lay that groundwork.

And that goes back to what I was saying. The Republican Party needs to stop with the social rhetoric targeted at women and minorities if it hopes to win national elections. If you paint all Hispanics as illegals and moochers as a party, you're probably not going to attract Hispanic voters to your party even at GWB levels, never mind flipping the script on the Democrats.

If you continue to proclaim that Muslims are terrorists and shouldn't get to build mosques because this is America, etc, they're going to vote for the Democrats. And since birthrates among Muslims are higher than they are against white Christians in this country...that's a demographic trend that will just hurt the Republicans the longer it continues.

If you continue to paint women as sluts who kill babies because it's easier than not having sex, you're going to continue to lose women, and since women make up a greater percentage of the electorate than men do...

Social rhetoric wins you nominations. It wins you House races. In some states, it wins you Senate races. It won't win you Presidencies unless you manage to depress the female and minority vote at this point.

As Dutch pointed out, that's just demographic math. Every election cycle that passes, the white vote is less powerful than it was the one before.

He's a history buff by nature (or some really really early nuture) so we've probably had an abnormally high number of those conversations. There's hardly a game he's played that hasn't prompted more than one conversation about all manner of things (often socio-political and/or historical).


See, that's not a video game issue IMO. That's a parenting issue.

This article pretty much nails my view point on the matter:

Gun Control Is Just the Latest Issue Where Facts Lose Out to Emotions and Paranoia

You lost me here. All Republicans don't hold these views that "all hispanics are illegals and moochers", or that "Muslims are terrorists." I know it's a very popular strategic strategy to paint the situation as such, but it's obnoxious.

I want to know what internet that guy's on where he's "not allowed to discuss gun control".

"Back to gun control. What most people are talking about is not banning guns completely, but putting in place some reasonable restrictions that would provide a line of defense against mass killings like the one in Newtown without infringing on what most people consider reasonable uses for guns. Assault rifles, automatic weapons, weapons that don't need reloading, megaclips, etc. aren't meant for hunting or sport. "

I think most people are in favor of "reasonable" gun control restrictions. So it's hard to see what the point is when people start talking like this. He's taken a very moderate gun control stance, and he's putting it up against an extreme gun-rights stance, in order to sound as reasonable as possible in his article. But that's not really the relevant debate here. The debate isn't between having moderate regulations v. having none at all. When you frame it like that it's a little too easy. We already have regulations in place (the author doesn't seem to know that felons already can't legally buy guns). The question is whether there are additional regulations that would be beneficial when balanced against rights, what those regulations are, and how effective those additional regulations are v. addressing other types of issues like mental health.

Except the most vocal wings of the party hold exactly those views. And that's the problem. The fringe members yell the loudest and get the press, and the saner members of the party don't tell them to sit down and shut up, because doing so will cost them base support.

And so a view that Republican A may not hold gets attributed to him because Republican B *does* hold it, and Republican A would rather attack the Democrat than tell Republican B to go play in traffic and let the adults handle matters.

Which vocal Republicans are proclaiming that "all Hispanics are illegal and moochers"?

I would gladly give up my right to have a semi-auto weapon if I am allowed to smoke weed legally.

For whatever it's worth, you DO give up your right to own a firearm as soon as you become a "legal" MMJ user. Which is surely why we've seen such a major decrease in cancerous stoner gun violence.

You can have my Medical Marijuana card when you can pry my Doritos out of my cold dead hands.

Interesting. I have a friend in Colorado that must have fallen through the cracks on this. I don't know where he bought his guns, but ya, it looks like people are getting turned away if they have a medical marijuana card. Just reading a little about it, its kind of funny to see stoners up in arms about gun control regulations. Though in Colorado, there's probably a ton more overlap in the weed smoking and gun communities than there are in most other places.

A little ironic.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/...cre/?iid=HP_LN

I enjoyed the series but I understand ...

Discovery hit ‘American Guns’ canceled as Hollywood wrestles with links to gun violence | Fox News

Getting closer!

Obama Makes Third Fiscal Cliff Offer

If there is no deal on debt ceiling increases the White House should jump off the cliff. As long as the GOP is committed to risking the credit of the USA there isn't any reason to make a deal. They'll just renig in a few months when the debt ceiling needs to be lifted.

Once you cross the line from the millions of unwashed, casual stoners, into the (also unwashed) hardcore/old school/bikers/growers/mmj/activist crowd it's fascinating to see how the political compass almost completely reverses in a lot of cases. Lots of libertarians and gun rights in general, but perhaps most surprisingly a lot of vehemently anti-Obama sentiment from ostensibly liberal folks, mostly thanks to increased DEA raids on dispensaries, and marijuana bust numbers vs. GWB. A sentiment I share, frankly.

The GOP could also rig the elections to stay alive.

If you can't win by the rules, just change the rules.

That was quick.

Cerberus to Sell Gunmaker Freedom Group - NYTimes.com

I don't know if this is good or bad right now, but I like how with Obamacare they are thinking outside the box. In my mind, there are (1) providers (2) payers (3) pharma (4) medical products. Good start but this still leaves (3) and (4).

Hospital systems to form their own insurance company | www.ajc.com

1) Isn't this selling low?
2) Isn't the damage already done to Cerberus's brand name?
3) Seriously? You're named after the three headed dog from hell. Are you really worried about damage to your brand name?

SI

And as long a the democrats aren't interested in significant spending cuts ("let's raise taxes now and worry about spending later" my butt), we should jump off the cliff.

Heck, I've reached a point where I think we ought to jump off the cliff anyway. Get the revenue increases and spending cuts necessary to start reducing our debt, and maybe piss people off enough to get more fresh faces into office.

No, I believe you were inaccurate. I was the a-hole for pointing it out ;)

SI

Especially since they are trying establish an absolute monopoly of oil resources and supplies.

Pure awesome

Got my weapon today. Talking to a guy at the register as we were going thru background check (< 15 min BTW). He bought same model as me. He said "the candle has been lit" and I agree. Something like below will happen.

Obama's push on gun violence begins to take shape - First Read

Obama is person of the year.

TIME Person of the Year is President Obama - TODAY Celebrates

It'll also light a candle for sales, the manufacturers are almost certain to see a big boost in sales just like they did when BO was first elected.

I suspect we'll get a lot of hoopla and a gun control bill that has so many exceptions it doesn't restrict anything. But both sides will be excited about how they supported their base.

SI

Yep. I don't consider myself too passionate about this issue on either side but when I read the proposals I thought to myself this is nothing. Obviously the gun side is going to say this is the beginning of the end and the gun control side is going to claim a major victory "For Newton". Politics as usual.

But maybe it will set the gun control side up for the next high profile shooting, where they might have the political will to take another step. I think deep down the sides know that these steps now are meaningless on their own, it's all about momentum and what direction we're going in.

But I think the reality is, violent crime will continue to decrease regardless of the presence or absence or retraction of gun control legislation, just like it has since 1991 or so, even through the implementation and then expiration of the assault weapon ban. Culture and the local communities will drive our fate here, not politicians and lobbyists spending billions for tiny meaningless changes back and forth in the battle for that momentum. For them it's just a part of the game of power and campaign contributions.

That's a bold prediction there.

LOL - that's the reality of the sad state of journalism today.

Sad work.

Was pretty amused by some of the characterizations in that article. Pretty clear which side of the fence that magazine sits.

I agree with this. Some of the most effective ways of measurably reducing violence has been in local communities reaching out gangs and for police to offer amnesty and guns for cash. They also organize Stop the Violence campaigns and raise their profile in schools, news and gatherings. None of this can come federal legislation and their lobbyists so quit looking towards Washington and your state capital for solutions when better solutions are right in your communities.

I guess it was also pretty clear when W won twice, Gingrich won, Bush Sr won, Reagan won twice, etc.?

Since the inception of the award, every single two term president has won the award twice (even Nixon, who is the only back to back winner), no matter what party they belong to.

Vigilance is critical too. I read two stories yesterday about students who were detained (one arrested, one committed to a mental facility), for making threats and generally scaring everyone. Maybe they wouldn't have been so vigilant last week. There's a risk of going overboard, sure, but identifying the risks and actively dealing it with is at that level is so much more effective than making sure lightly-enforced federal law doesn't allow certain types of weapons, but broadly permits others.

STOP USING FACTS TO COMBAT IDIOTS!!!

Or, use responsive facts at least. I didn't read the article but Mizzou B-ball fan's post clearly said "characterizations in that article", not their decision who to give the award to. I know the combination of "liberal media" and "Mizzou B-ball fan" makes you guys dizzy and angry, but c'mon. Just from the blurb posted here though, I had the same thought about them saying Obama was the symbol of a "a new cultural America" and that he "ignored partisanship to do his job."

Edit: Also, I wish we could retire the schtick of yelling at nobody in particular in all caps, but if we can't, I'm going to try it.

EVERY NEWS SOURCE IS EITHER EXACTLY IN THE MIDDLE OR EVL RIGHTIES LIKE FOXNEWS!!

Actually, that was kind of fun.

There is some evidence that reducing lead levels in the air and lead abatement have made in difference in violent behavior.

Yes, they picked someone as person of the year and wrote a glowing article on him. Because that person is a Democrat does not make them liberally biased. I see the characterizations in the article as directly tied to the person being chosen.

I appreciate that someone was paying attention to the content of my response rather than posting a knee-jerk reactionary response.

The other one that I noticed that you didn't list was the comment that 'Obama won support from a group of core voters who don't actually care about politics'. I find that to be a strange and misguided characterization of those voters and voters in general. It's not that they don't care about politics. It's that they don't care for the partisan antics that currently characterize the political forum. There's far too many disinterested voters who are voting for what they believe is the lesser of two evils in our presidential elections. There's a reason they don't 'care', but it has little to do with them not being interested in politics or what happens in our government.

I think the quote is accurate, if you add a single word: 'Obama won support from a group of core voters who don't actually care about HIS politics'. Like you say, to my eyes, the great majority of folks voted for the party they support and the generic values those parties are supposed to represent, without all that much consideration for either of the actual candidates or their records, simply because the candidates themselves both represented their core pretty poorly.

I like how it's the GOP that is committed to risking the credit of the USA. Increasing debt (and debt ceiling) without a real plan to pay for it-and start paying it down-is risking credit. The left seems to forget this fact.

That's a battle for budget negotiations. Deciding not to pay the bills the government has committed to is reckless and only one party is willing to do that.

Hold on, so passing legislation you have no idea how to pay for, is perfectly fine, because that's for the budget battle.

BUT, refusing to fund that legislation is reckless...

Gotcha...

Both parties are guilty of this.

Both parties are guilty of this. It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

No. The Democrats have voted against a debt limit increase in the past, but have always provided enough votes to make sure it passed. The GOP has and is threatening to deliberately refuse to pay the bills those same congressmen authorized earlier.

If the budget has passed, refusing to pay the bill is indeed reckless. Would you say that running up a bill on the credit card, but refusing to pay it off isn't reckless?

??? So they voted just enough to make a point, but not enough to actually do anything?

"Just enough to make a point, but not enough to actually do anything" - I think they actually put that on a T-shirt they hand out at conventions.

FWIW, every Dem Senator (including Obama) voted against raising the debt limit during the Iraq War, as did a few Republicans.

Neither side has a plan to pay for it. And both sides want to increase debt. I mean Romney's plan was to cut taxes 20% and increase the defense budget.

A post for the ages......

That's been the bipartisan plan since Reagan, and you can criticize that all you want, but that's a far cry from actually refusing to pay the bills for the things you voted to buy.

So you agree that the government should agree to buy things and then refuse to pay the bills?

Nobody's refused to pay any bills though. Just threats and votes from both parties, over the years. (Edit: And Obama has changed his mind on this since 2006, he says he regrets his vote and it was way too risky to go all-in on voting to refuse to raise the debt ceiling without knowing for sure how many Republicans would go along with it.)

This GOP is the first party to ever threaten to stop paying the bills. That decision played a major role in lowering the nation's credit rating.

Heads have rolled ... but at the assistant level.

3 State Dept. Officials Resign Following Benghazi Report - NYTimes.com

Ever?

At least since the debt limit was imposed in 1917.

And the game of chicken continue. I have a feeling if we go over the cliff the next 4 years will be the most partisan we've seen yet.

Boehner defies White House, says chamber will pass 'Plan B' to avert tax hikes | Fox News

So proposing a permanent tax relief for most Americans is considered partisan war painting but opposing such is not?

In Washington D.C.? Yes.

If this had been proposed by democrats, it would be the next best thing to sliced bread. Just like had Romneycare had been passed by the republicans, it would have been the next best thing since free beer at ball games.

I'm not enough of a legislative branch historian to know if its just always been like this but that kind of rhetoric Boehner uses there is what sickens me about Congress and politics. Boehner's making his offer, and now he's calling on Obama to just "get the Democrats to go along with it." Votes for national legislative office are meaningless. It's just two dudes, one of whom isn't even in the legislature, who have to agree to a way to go forward, and then when those two agree we'll have a deal. Maybe if we had more diverse views in congress, a third party, independents, there would be more legislative support based on crazy old ideas like that they think particular legislation is good or something.

If they go off the fiscal cliff my one-person meaningless protest will be to never vote for a big-2 party member for national legislature ever again (or until my change my mind, I did mention it would be a meaningless protest).

Clintonesque speak. If this is true for the $1M and up, doesn't this mean the same thing for $400K and up ... not really a tax increase for them?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8BI19220121219

Boehner must have some unbelievable pressure right now from left and right but I feel little sympathy. IMO the majority of Americans have spoken clearly on this tax issue and he should concede. I don't know if he is one of the worst, most ineffective House Speakers but he personifies the party of "no".

Time Magazine Names Mitt Romney Man of the Year 1912 : The New Yorker

The New Yorker should leave satire to the onion, that doesn't even make sense. I don't they even had an income tax in 1912. And saying Romney has 1912 views on women's rights is kind of like calling Obama a socialist. If you exaggerate the views of the left, its mean-spirited, if you exaggerate the views of the right, its hilarious satire (or worse, it's just taken as fact, like the "Republicans believe all Hispanics are illegals and moochers" poster. )

The makeup of the House of Representatives begs to differ.

So how well Republicans were able to gerrymander ous what best represents there will of the people?

It represents what those people were elected to do.

And, to be honest, by any means necessary as far as I'm concerned at this point.

As much as a few percentages of popular vote represent a "landslide" and a "mandate" (for ANY election).