Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

Along with Nellie 's point that if I've got to walk around strapped to feel safe I'm going to move somewhere else, this is my main argument against "ERRYBODY GET A GUN WE ALL BE SAFE THEN". Gun safety courses aren't required in my state merely for owning or registering a firearm*, and even the concealed weapon permits here have a day in a classroom and a laughably low number of rounds required to show proficiency (either 50 or 75 rounds every 5 years or so, varies here per range you're getting certified at). I don't want the person that just barely passed that set of requirements out in public with a gun. At best they're going to do more harm that good in any situation where the gun is coming out.

*At least I've never been informed that it's required. If you want a hunting license you need to have passed hunter's ed if you're over 16.

Man WHAT? Is that dude on a mob hit list? Who the fuck does a B&E with nearly a dozen people?

I wasn't leaving that out, I was responding to a comment about deaths caused by guns.

GUYS, IT'S TIME FOR A REASONED, LOGICAL DEBATE ABOUT GUN CONTROL!

It really is a bit tone deaf to organized National Gun Appreciation Day on the weekend we celebrate a man who fought for civil rights and was killed by a gunshot wound.

Jon Stewart had quite a good time with that last week.

So basically.. we have permission to take that dude's guns?

IF ONLY EVERYONE HAD A GUN THIS ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT WOULD HAVE FAILED

Oh wait, he was stopped? And no one else used a gun to do it? Is this some kind of black magic? I thought the only thing that could stop a bad guy with a gun was a good guy with a gun...

Apparently he used a gas pistol, which fires tear gas cartridges.

Way to steal my thunder with facts... :(

Jesus. By the end of that I wanted to give the assassin a gun

Gawker has a handy list of all the people killed or injured by guns during Gun Appreciation Day.

This is in addition to the five people shot at gun shows in North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana.

Edit: My favorite comment in response.

Again, why aren't people more upset about the daily deaths of kids accidentally shot by their parents' firearms?

A cousin who lives in Manhattan was upset about the Newtown, CT massacre and mentioned that her young son shouldn't have to go to a pre-school with an armed off-duty NYPD officer as a guard. I asked her why she wasn't upset about all the preventable deaths of kids that occur practically every day in the US. The massacres, as tragic as they were, are outliers compared to the tens of thousands of gun-related deaths each year in the US (apparently half are suicides).

I think because it's their own kids, people think of it as a private matter.

I think it's more that in order to keep our lax gun safety and avoid responsibility, we need to as a nation pretend it doesn't happen.

Hmmm, let's all look at FOX News, a major news source with the highest ratings in the nation, calling Obama Hitler and ponder this.

I <3 Jon Stewart.

Does it diminish an American gun owner's right by having adhering to gun safety? Why couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't the NRA push for gun safety?

The NRA's gun safety rules:

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

—The National Rifle Association, The fundamental NRA rules for safe gun handling

Would it be very difficult to make American citizens pass a mandatory gun safety course before they're allowed to get a gun license/permit?

According to them: yes.

"YOUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK!! DONATE TODAY!!"

You know who else made American citizens pass a mandatory gun safety course before they're allowed to get a gun license/permit????

It all has to do with your interpretation of the Second Amendment. Which has traditionally been seen as saying, basically, that you can't do anything like that. That doesn't mean "anything goes" when it comes to guns - Americans can't own tanks with working guns, grenade launchers, artillery, or fully automatic weapons. But beyond that it gets murky, depending on what your view of the Second Amendment is.

For example, there has been talk about requiring gun owners to get insurance. And the idea seems somewhat logical - after all, we require it for car ownership. But there is nothing in the US Constitution about a right to own a car and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if our currently mostly conservative Supreme Court ruled a gun insurance law unconstitutional.

Piloting a plane and driving a car requires a license so why not a gun license? I'm still baffled about each state-to-state gun laws varying so much. Why not just have the federal government just mandate that each person is required to have a gun license and in order to get it you have to pass a mandatory gun safety course (you know...like what we do here in Canada).

Can't find the episode. Link please?

Interesting.

Again, the wording of the Second Amendment doesn't seem to support the idea as it has traditionally been interpreted. Here it is, in its entirety:

So anything that infringes on the right to own a gun could be argued as unconstitutional. A license would likely involve a fee, so there you go, you've infringed on someone who can't afford it. Again, since there are no amendments about the right to fly a plane or drive a car, you can't infringe on them. They are not a right defined by the laws of the land.

Think of it this way - you have a right to vote. A lot of people would argue that your right would be infringed upon if you had to have a license to vote. Heck, a lot of people have argued that laws that require a state issued ID to vote infringe upon poor people's right to vote.

A 15-year-old boy has been charged with killing five people, including three children, at a home outside Albuquerque, New Mexico.

I read that list and had no idea that quite so many kids were hurt or killed by firearms as a (probably representational) proportion of the overall tally. Tragic.

I always thought this was an interesting take on "rights;" guns are the only thing (it seems) that we have a right to that isn't given to us freely based on need. You still have to buy the gun. There's no gun welfare programs (that I know of).

What does this mean? I need to put a paper with my opinions in every person in the US's hands tomorrow. Is someone going to give me a printing press?

The right to vote is free as a matter of law (24th amendment), not just because,

It means we have means in place to secure the other rights for Americans. Voting booths are located close to home (if possible) and there's usually a vote-by-mail alternative for people who won't be home (such as people in the armed forces) or can't get around easily. Food stamps, Medicaid, and other social programs are designed to help people who can't afford food, housing, and health care (part of our guarantee of "life").

As for the first amendment, you don't need any special resources to pray to a deity or go door-to-door in your neighborhood to campaign about an issue. As far as press goes, we subsidize NPR and PBS (IIRC we also subsidize C-SPAN).

We don't do anything close to that (that I'm aware of) when it comes to guns, unless you count arming our police and military (which other countries seem to take care of without an equivalent to our 2nd Amendment). That's all I'm saying.

Don't mistake me for advocating that we SHOULD be giving out free guns, or subsidizing ownership of firearms. I think that's a preposterous notion.

I agree! Poverty infringes on the second amendment rights of the poor! I'm starting a petition on We The People immediately to request that the Obama administration create a new welfare department with the goal of arming the homeless!

I have seen people argue in good faith in response to a rise in violence against homeless people in past decade, that we should, in fact, arm homeless people.

Fuck food and shelter, here's your gun.

Why can't we just go the Popemobile route and put everyone in big plastic bubbles?

QUICHE EATERS

Holy crap someone give this guy a copy of The Big Book of Internet Burns to bring him into this century.

Also lol at "Pearl Harbor attacker made Prius." I'm trying to think of something that typifies "ugly American" better than being vocally butthurt about a 70 year old attack on American soil that was answered with, you know, the only two nuclear detonations dropped in an act of war in world history, but I'm coming up short (must be the quiche).

Because it's in the constitution, while driving things isn't (sorta).

This is also what fuels Sovereign Citizens, who put forth that driving IS in the constitution, and it's a violation of their rights to demand documentation in order to drive. And a number of other crazy things, but thankfully we just consider those people crazy.

But as someone pointed out: we've upheld that the 2nd doesn't cover tanks, nukes, rocket launchers, etc. Which isn't in the text anywhere. So either we need a new amendment that clarifies the 2nd, or we need to just keep on ignoring the troublingly broad actual text in the courts.

The gun he used can cause injuries up to and including death if used at the range he was at, even though it was a gas-powered gun.

While watching that, I was thinking that someone should really rein in the guys putting the boots in, because it was starting to get ugly. Then, right before it ended, the hunched-over, little, old man came charging in with his umbrella to get a shot in, and I burst out laughing.

Tom Morello, ladies and gentlemen, part-time Citgo attendant.

That is one of my favorite campy movies.