It is time for society, as a whole, and gun lovers in particular to let go

[morningfog]

of their obsession and lay down their weapons. They are not toys and they are not worth it anymore.

Gun violence is far worse than terrorism or any other external threat. It is time to step up and renounce the culture and the love of the gun.

This has simply got to end, and it ends with you renouncing and voluntarily letting go of your paranoia, your obsession and your obstructing the US from moving forward as a civilized society.

[Fresh_Start]

1. its time to start ridiculing the gun lovers

guns are not patriotic.
Taking care of our future generations is patriotic.
And guns are the antithesis of taking care of the future generations.

[morningfog]

2. I absolutely agree. They are archane paranoid lunatics holding us back for no good reason.

[RKP5637]

4. Many of those spouting off about their guns and their gun rights are about the

most unpatriotic I ever see/hear. Same with religion, those spouting off about their religion and their religious rights are about the most nonreligious I ever see/hear.

[LiberalEsto]

3. Amen.

I HATE the NRA.
They are sick utterly selfish immature bastards who hide behind the U.S. Constitution so they can play with their fucking phallic symbols.

[smirkymonkey]

16. +1000

What you said.

[bluestate10]

5. The guns were purchased legally and were registered from what is known.

Gun laws would not have prevented this incident unless all guns are taken away from gun owners. I wrote a post yesterday claiming that the situation which happened in Oregon is difficult to prevent, as horrible as the situation is today, if we focus on guns only, we will not repeat events like the killings earlier today from happening. We can impact street killing during robbery, fights, and revenge killings by having robust background checks and registration. One thing that can be added to background checks is whether the person applying for the gun has mentally ill or criminal relatives or associates that can come in contract with the gun - if so, the risk posted by those people would need to be examined as part of the background check. More vigorous background checking will slow up gun ownership, but law abiding people that don't have risks that could misuse a gun will get their guns, with the benefit that innocent people won't get slaughtered.

[morningfog]

6. There are a lot of problems to be dealt with, to be sure. But, guns are the chief problem.

Legal guns are used more often to kill than illegal guns. We need to make it harder to get guns, harder to keep guns and make more guns illegal.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. "Legal guns are used more often to kill than illegal guns."

Do you a citation for that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it would seem to go against the oft-made claim that the majority of US homicides are committed by people who already have significant criminal records (which would make their possession of a firearm illegal).

[morningfog]

11. In mass shootings, yes:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Ah, okay...with that qualifier, I have no doubt that's the case.

I hope this doesn't come across as callous, I'm not as concerned with spree killings in terms of formulating public policy as I am with far more common (exponentially...) "ordinary" homicides. They're horrific and soul-crushing...but vastly more people are killed and injured by guns that find their way into criminal hands. Most of these are small, concealable handguns, too.

[morningfog]

13. Yes that is calloused and ignorant.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. *sigh*

I should have known better...

Welcome to ignore.

[morningfog]

15. Thank you!

[marions ghost]

10. and prosecute those whose guns end up in the wrong hands.

To the same extent as the perpetrator.

[thucythucy]

7. Except of course the NRA is opposed

to "more vigorous background checking" as a violation of their precious right to purchase whatever firearm they want, whenever they want.

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. Interesting suggestion.

A more in-depth check that included even the applicant's mental health state (to say nothing of their relatives, etc.) would require massive changes to the laws regarding medical records. The only way such a condition would be revealed under the current NICS system would be if the person applying had been adjudicated mentally ill (that is to say, found to be so by a judge). That makes it part of the person's legal record. Any other such indication is part of their medical records, which are protected by very stringent privacy laws.

A promising step? Possibly so. But one that would require a huge (and undoubtedly controversial) change in the law.