I said he planned it. The Boston Bombers were lone wolfs too and were similar to this guy. ISIS hasn't claimed any responsibility which is a big sign this isn't connected to him. Either he hated someone at work or his job and planned to do this a while back or he has some sympathies to terrorism. He isn't part of a cell or anything.

It was one individual who decided "life is bitter and short, one shouldn't let the opportunity to submit to allah pass them by (or something like that)". It had a lot in common with many mass shootings except the shooter sympathized with jihadism.

Enough is enough.

Because the amendment process always knows better than hashtag memes?

200 years ago the american militias were more powerful than the army? The army wasn't able to defeat invaders?

BTW, the british didn't think they were being assholes.

Actually it's evidence that gun control laws are out of date. Now a well regulated militia requires artillery, tanks, fighter jets and missiles, all of which should therefore be for sale on the open market.

jesus christ

Maybe they need him too.

Maybe because most of America is run by moronic Republicans and people know that it's more hassle than it's worth to ever get anything like an Amendment passed. I don't know really. I also don't care.

Watch this whole video if you want, because it's on this topic. But I thought the graph at 7:20 was interesting. The US has a higher death rate in assaults without firearms than other developed countries. That's even though some gun deaths might otherwise be attacks by other means if guns were more difficult to get. So, the rates in the US are not due simply to gun control.

Great analogy. It shook me to the core with its profundity and relevance. You have convinced me.

I guess that means if you were convicted of a crime and served time in jail and were released, that the "time passage theory of law" would mean upon release you could be convicted again and sent back to jail for the same crime.

If that oaf Donald Trump becomes President, he can evict all immigrants, ban Obamacare, require gun ownership, ban minority votes and whatever because all those laws were "so two years ago" and the meaning has changed.

If the U.S. is run by an elected bunch of Republicans, is that evidence that people want more restrictive gun control laws?

Nope.

Amazing how some are so convinced that Syrian refugee's pose a massive threat to the safety of Americans yet, when it comes to guns...

Blasting a hole through "moral outrage". You can't really argue with this.

https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/6 ... 9528116224

There are ways to get around that. Regulate gun manufacturing (through licensing). Require gun safety measures (e.g. training for specific weapons). Make it hard to transfer guns.

Because there is a prevalent "gun culture" in the US? Some people want a "quick fix" through the escalation of force.

Personally, I don't like guns. I think the country would be better off eliminating all guns outside of law enforcement (with strict accountability for use) and military. That would eventually significantly reduce the number of mass killings we've seen lately. Mentally unstable and evil people are still going to find a way to hurt people, but why make it easy on them? If they have to make a bomb or use a knife, it will be much more difficult to do and less will do it.

The reason the US has so many shootings is they have two things more than any first world country. One is guns and the other is mental illness. The US is the equivalent of a country by far leading the world in drunk driving deaths and the liberal media pushing a "Why tf does everyone have 3 cars if they drive drunk all the time? Ban cars!" platform. Maybe in a country where half of them are alcoholics taking away their cars is the right idea. But figuring out why everyone is getting drunk is a problem too, because in this country the drunk problem is leading to tons of other deaths by people getting picked off by alcohol poisoning, falling off buildings, getting stabbed in fights, etc. or just ruining lives by making them stuck in a bar all day, at a higher rate many times over than drunk driving deaths. Likewise mental illness kills far more lives outside of mass shootings than in them. Enacting gun control helps the tiny fraction of kids who die in mass shootings. Want to make a bigger difference, give me education reform. So many hours that could spent trying to get kids to develop healthy emotional lives, understand money, respect women, etc. and instead it's decided making sure they know names and dates in the American Revolution and Civil War or know basic algebra, information that will have 0 impact on their lives for 99% of people, is more important. Instead of restricting how hard it is to get a guns, how about we make sure parents pass a 10 hour course and pass a test before they give birth telling them concepts many parents have never seriously considered like shame and guilt being a weapon and the positive power of compassion.

This is the basic problem in this country. You acknowledged that stricter gun control would help a little, but the bigger issue is mental illness. Then said "instead" of gun control, focus on mental illness and education. But not all of the gun problems are caused by mentally ill people and people who lack training. So I say do all three. It's always pick a side instead of solve the problem. Solve all three of those problems and we won't have to worry about it. It's an impulse to pick one or the other because that's how we've been conditioned in this country. Democrat or Republican, pick a side. That isn't working because nobody is solving the problems, they're just fighting.

It seems to be too much to ask to want people to work together. That's a sad thing.

If that's the case, than guns are a product of something more deeply embedded in the culture. Still, I question your idea since video games have not been shown to make people violent. Also: http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2014/06/28/the-myth-of-mental-illness-and-gun-violence/. But there are all sorts of variables that would relate to and predict the trends in the US, such as religiosity and income inequality.

The President just delivered a great speech about his Executive Orders he's about to enact.

Gonna miss this guy.

I'm no longer against handguns.

If someone were to break into my home, I'd certainly want a handgun, not a hunting rifle. I know that's unlikely but it does happen, and I certainly wouldn't want to be unarmed.

I think that reasonable gun restriction would be a criminal background check. I don't think we need much more than that considering they should only be used in emergencies.

A criminal background check might work for the masses, but how about for a prostitute? Someone that has been in a desperate position in their life isn't allowed to protect themselves afterwards?

All guns should be illegal. Period. I just see no way how the police/authorities can protect its citizens when the citizens have the same tools.

And how do you suppose we get rid of all guns?

Otherwise I'd agree with you.

There's nothing wrong with restricting guns to lawful citizens, but I do t see how taking guns away from law abiding citizens helps anything.