End the Gun Epidemic in America

A day after the California carnage, the Senate decided to do nothing, again, voting down a measure that would have made it more difficult for people on the terror watch list, felons and the mentally ill to buy guns.

By next week, with the professional football playoff picture starting to take shape, and the holiday festivities in full swing, we’ll have this San Bernardino thing figured out. And we’ll hope that it doesn’t happen again tomorrow. But it will happen tomorrow — on average, one multiple-victim shooting a day. Every day. It will make sense in the only country where mass killings make sense.

truthbetold wrote:CD

Gun control is not a smart thing to talk about after San Bernadino killings.  It is no new town incident.  Obama was little too over zealous too.  These killers are motivated and their actions were premeditated.

And it is why one of President Obama’s finest hours and best speeches was at the National Defense University in 2013, when he laboriously and intricately and responsibly laid out the rationale for drone attacks but also recognized the potentially insidious nature of the reasoning, saying that “America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion.* To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power—or risk abusing it.”

The collective responsibility that all Americans share is the responsibility of allowing too many people to have too many guns; guns of a kind that no civilian ever needs can be bought in this country by almost anyone who wants one. We have been running an experiment of a kind that no sane ethicist would allow: what happens when, in a country large enough to contain every imaginable kind of crazy, from the inward-turning, maniac sort to the outward-turning, politicized kind, you make sure that almost anyone can readily buy any kind of gun? And now we know the answer: you get more gun massacres than there are days in the year.

No sane person thinks that Carly Fiorina is “guilty” of the shooting at Planned Parenthood, or that Wayne LaPierre is guilty of the one in San Bernardino—but those who put weapons into the hands of anyone who wants them are complicit in what happens when they do. (And those who encourage hate speech directed at health clinics share responsibility for what happens when people take them seriously.) They are responsible in the same way that we are all responsible for the bad consequences of our beliefs, in exactly the same way that Wahhabi imams who preach intolerance are responsible for the consequences of their words. Sometimes you can avoid such horrible consequences with a minimal effort at thinking and acting responsibly. And when you can, you should.

truthbetold wrote:CD,

San bernadino is not the time one can rally people to gun control.  Attempts to use it for gun control would only backfire.  If you wish to be dense, that is your prerogative.

truthbetold wrote:CD

Gun control is not a smart thing to talk about after San Bernadino killings.  It is no new town incident.  Obama was little too over zealous too.  These killers are motivated and their actions were premeditated.

truthbetold wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/politics/california-attack-has-us-rethinking-strategy-on-homegrown-terror.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

CD,

Read the above. The most important lesson from San Bernadino is that the killers have guns and ammunition. It is not that they are muslims. Those facts were somewhat expected based on recent history. But the most disturbing part is that these killers were US residents, one of them is US born,  middle class, educated, and married.  Above all they had a child.  No criminal record.
Least suspect.  Whether they are self radicalized or ISIS directed,  this incident makes americans upset and afraid.  

So whatever papers say  or obama says, you should use your judgement to arrive at your conclusions. Gun control is not an important issue in this incident.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:CD

Gun control is not a smart thing to talk about after San Bernadino killings.  It is no new town incident.  Obama was little too over zealous too.  These killers are motivated and their actions were premeditated.

it is absolutely one of the smart things to talk about after san bernardino. the idea of terrorists getting free access to guns and ammo making use of america's lax gun laws is not a theoretical anymore. it's in our face. in fact it's quite dumb to not talk about gun control right now.

truthbetold wrote:Max,

These would be terrorists (before the incident) bought these guns legitimately. They had no criminal record or mental issue record. CA has among the strictest guns laws in the country. You could not stop them from buying those weapons unless you are proposing that a muslim ( thus an automatic terror suspect) cannot buy a gun.

'truthbetold wrote:Motivated killers get guns and whatever else they need.  Examples of France and Norway mass shootings. Both countries have strict gun controls.

One can make perfunctory statement to please self or meet the obligatory political requirements.

truthbetold wrote:Max,

These would be terrorists (before the incident) bought these guns legitimately. They had no criminal record or mental issue record. CA has among the strictest guns laws in the country. You could not stop them from buying those weapons unless you are proposing that a muslim ( thus an automatic terror suspect) cannot buy a gun.

Motivated killers get guns and whatever else they need.  Examples of France and Norway mass shootings. Both countries have strict gun controls.

One can make perfunctory statement to please self or meet the obligatory political requirements.

truthbetold wrote:

One can make perfunctory statement to please self or meet the obligatory political requirements.

truthbetold wrote:Max,

it is a stupid discussion. Republicans are wrong to oppose the idea that blocks people on terrorist list to arm themselves. Republicans are beholden to NRA. Dems rightly shame them for that stand.

But to use that kind of political polemics in a discussion between such posters is not very original.  

None of the serious gun control legislation suggested before the San bernadino killings could have prevented these killers from obtaining the guns and ammunition.  CA has the strictest gun controls laws in USA.  CA legislature is controlled by Democrats. None of Obama's own proposal go beyond what is already on CA gun control measures.

Not even the stupidest dovish politician has suggested that gun control stop terrorism.  I am not opposed to gun control in USA but gun control would not be on top of my priority task list to fight terrorism. It could be one of the 10 things i may do but not my one or two.

confuzzled dude wrote:

http://www.erickontheradio.com/2015/12/i-shot-holes-in-the-new-york-times-editorial/

I would be really really worried for my life If I were working in the same office or building as this guy.

truthbetold wrote:max,

you work yourself into a frenzy with your imaginary enemy arguments.  I have answered your questions even before reading your post.  

You are simply addressing the wrong problem.  

I would support you on your demand for action against saudis and pakistan. But what action are you suggesting? Destroy saudis with really sharp word bombs by Obama?  or are you suggesting squeeze the pakistan by denying them next presidential visit when Obama visits India?

truthbetold wrote:max,

you work yourself into a frenzy with your imaginary enemy arguments.  I have answered your questions even before reading your post.  

You are simply addressing the wrong problem.  

I would support you on your demand for action against saudis and pakistan. But what action are you suggesting? Destroy saudis with really sharp word bombs by Obama?  or are you suggesting squeeze the pakistan by denying them next presidential visit when Obama visits India?

truthbetold wrote:  I have answered your questions even before reading your post.  

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:  I have answered your questions even before reading your post.  

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:  I have answered your questions even before reading your post.  

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

Why are they non sequiturs? Just because decided so? or is it because you cannot put forward logical arguments?

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:max,

you work yourself into a frenzy with your imaginary enemy arguments.  I have answered your questions even before reading your post.  

You are simply addressing the wrong problem.  

I would support you on your demand for action against saudis and pakistan. But what action are you suggesting? Destroy saudis with really sharp word bombs by Obama?  or are you suggesting squeeze the pakistan by denying them next presidential visit when Obama visits India?

How about severing diplomatic, trade ties or imposing sanctions?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:  I have answered your questions even before reading your post.  

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

Why are they non sequiturs? Just because decided so? or is it because you cannot put forward logical arguments?

talking about putting pressure on the saudis is a non-sequitur on a thread about ending the gun epidemic. if you want to talk about that, post it in the appropriate thread.

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:max,

you work yourself into a frenzy with your imaginary enemy arguments.  I have answered your questions even before reading your post.  

You are simply addressing the wrong problem.  

I would support you on your demand for action against saudis and pakistan. But what action are you suggesting? Destroy saudis with really sharp word bombs by Obama?  or are you suggesting squeeze the pakistan by denying them next presidential visit when Obama visits India?

How about severing diplomatic, trade ties or imposing sanctions?

How come none of the consequential democratic leaders suggesting that?  Why are none of the major newspapers including NY times or wash post or even the left wing slate calling for that?  

India called for US to sever ties with Pakistan as early as 2001 after parliament attack.  However, it failed to register on your radar.

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:  I have answered your questions even before reading your post.  

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

Why are they non sequiturs? Just because decided so? or is it because you cannot put forward logical arguments?

talking about putting pressure on the saudis is a non-sequitur on a thread about ending the gun epidemic. if you want to talk about that, post it in the appropriate thread.

Max,

Read  carefully ( I made the same mistake).  CD is suggesting.   now that you told CD to buzz off, post your response to my post on your non sequitur claim?

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

that may well be the reason why your responses to my posts are non-sequiturs.

Why are they non sequiturs? Just because decided so? or is it because you cannot put forward logical arguments?

talking about putting pressure on the saudis is a non-sequitur on a thread about ending the gun epidemic. if you want to talk about that, post it in the appropriate thread.

Max,

Read  carefully ( I made the same mistake).  CD is suggesting.   now that you told CD to buzz off, post your response to my post on your non sequitur claim?

I see where Max is coming from, conservatives are trying to paint the picture as terrorism and gun control are mutually exclusive (the theory, you seem to have bought into) but given what happened last week, are they? Honestly, didn't you see this coming? we knew this, since 26/11 incident, it was a matter of when not if. And the irony is there are far more restrictions on buying fertilizers than assault weapons.

truthbetold wrote:max,

you can condemn republicans to your heart's content.  Facts do indicate a rise in local islamic radicals who are willing to engage in terrorism.  

Gun control , on the other hand, is not a tool that came about to only stop rare acts of terrorists. Gun control is primarily intended to fight gun related violence in every day life in all major cities in recent decades. If those tools help fight terrorism, all the more power to those laws.

Again gun control is not a primary or even secondary tool to fight local terrorism.

With the mass shooting in California last week focusing attention on terrorism and guns, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut announced on Thursday that he intended to sign an executive order barring people on federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms in the state.

“Like all Americans, I have been horrified by the recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris,” Mr. Malloy, a Democrat, told reporters. “This should be a wake-up call to all of us. This is a moment to seize in America, and today I’m here to say that we in Connecticut are seizing it.