Why Haven't Shootings Led To More Gun Control?

Science!!

I can haz muh guns?

So despite the Obama didn't take them, huh?

I just re-read the piece, what does this have to do with Obama, he's never mentioned.

OPS?

Memory lapse, tunnel vision, or were you were out behind the plow during all the hysteria?

I remember this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/obama-gun-control-state-of-the-union_n_4684426.html

Guess he figured he didn't have the stroke. Which according to the piece I posted, would be about right.

Again, this isn't about the president, it's about public opinion on gun control. Have you spoken to a medical professional about your OPS?

And the Olympics thread is now about the Cold War, and the Red States' water dilemma is now back on topic after your anti-California rant. Having trouble keeping up?

You take your position on the Kingsguard seriously don't you?

In my opinion.

Virginia Tech happened. The worst mass shooting so far and it

1) Didn't involve so called "assault weapons" It involved run of the mill handguns that will NEVER be greatly restricted for obvious reasons.

2) Didn't involve a stereotypical "angry white male" that people are fond of talking about. Instead it involved a crazy Asian.

Thus, Virginia Tech basically "democraticized mass murder". If all it takes is a couple of handguns wielded by a crazy Asian to commit the worst mass shooting in American history then there is no point in cracking down on semi-automatic rifles and angry white guys.

It's not hard to connect the dots. Gunforge has generally been screaming about Obama and the grabbers. And yet, no grabbing, as the article in the OP demonstrates. So many the hysteria was not so necessary, especially since most of the so-called gun grabbers keep telling you guys that's not what we want to do.

So on this issue, congress is more in tune with the citizenry than the president?

Even better question: Why hasn't gun control led to fewer mass shootings?

I'm of the opinion that any legal adult should be able to own guns, but I also believe in background checks, and gun training.
Of course, better psychological help for people who may be unstable might be better, and might save more lives. A combination of these things would keep people free to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, while also (hopefully) preventing such shootings.

Short answer. It is impossible to control guns to the point in the U.S. that they become generally inaccessible to those who want to use them for evil ends.

Can you elaborate?

Ask the people of New York State, who've gotten letters demanding they turn in their guns that hold more than 7 shots, about that.

If POTUS claimed he would pass gun control regardless of congress, and then realized how unpopular it would be, then his desires would be out he mainstream, no?

I'm about to grill burgers, If that didn't sound right, well fuck it.

Fail via posting link to crack pot partisan site.

Which links to the actual published study.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375010

What do you expect from someone who considers Reason to be a "crack pot" [sic] site.

Then just link to the actual original source in the OP and leave out the crappy discredited website controlled by the Koch brothers.

A good review of why Reason magazine is garbage.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reason_(magazine)

You cite...a subset of Wikipedia...as a damnation of Reason?

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

It's a type of wiki but independent with a some what liberal bent as it is reality based. Much of it is just creative writing with facts thrown in but they've been pretty spot on wrt political astroturf groups or propaganda outlets.

Wait, the Kochtopus is behind Reason? Those gay marriage lovin, drug war hatin bastards! Everyone knows this dude, any one who reads it routinely will see the authors point it out ad nauseam.

"Some what" [sic] liberal bent.

That "listing" is so biased it's pathetic.

You're as bad as the worst sort of Faux News viewer, except from the other side. You only consume news sources that agree with your POV, which is pathetic.


You may not like what Reason has to say, and that's your prerogative, but speaking as an expert, their journalism is top notch.

I've read a large number of their articles, and Reason is generally very fair in both tone and content. While I do disagree with some stances they take, they've never seemed as anything other than what they are, and they don't hide it. Are they libertarian? Sure, but then I can be libertarian on a number of issues. Either way, I don't care what your political POV is as long as you're not trying to bullshit me. When you try to bullshit me, you've lost my trust.

Very interesting OP, especially the original piece two links away. Thanks for posting it.

Ultimately, I think people will do what they actually want to do, and imaginary representation rules desire without functional negation. So if people end up supporting less gun control at the end of each cycle, let's take seriously that more guns is their concluding desire, and the increased talk about guns ultimately conforms to the established US discourse that presents them as desirable, no matter what is explicity said about the depicted and topical guns in the process.

That would be an amazingly dumb question following a source that says the former doesn't happen and the latter is extremely rare and getting rarer anyway. "Why haven't increased numbers of meteor strikes led to an increase in smartphones?"

Any mag that'll print pieces from Camille Paglia, and Joe Bob Briggs, and razz Ayn Rand, can't be all bad.

To be fair, any outfit that publishes somebody who used to post at Wordforge is questionable quality at best.