Obama Continues to Ineffectively Restate his Opinions on Gun Control - Polidicks

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-obama-responds-to-gun-violence.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur[/URL] [QUOTE][URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per"]President Obama[/URL] responded angrily on Saturday to the [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0"]mass shooting[/URL] that took three lives, including that of a police officer, at a [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/p/planned_parenthood_federation_of_america/index.html?inline=nyt-org"]Planned Parenthood[/URL] facility in Colorado Springs over the [URL="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/thanksgiving_day/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier"]Thanksgiving[/URL] holiday, calling the country’s recurring outbreaks of gun violence “not normal.” “We can’t let it become normal,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “If we truly care about this — if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience — then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough.” The tragedy quickly found its way into the presidential race, with the Democratic candidates offering statements of solidarity with Planned Parenthood, which has faced intense conservative criticism this year, and the Republican hopefuls largely avoiding mention of the latest outbreak of concentrated gun violence. [/QUOTE] Really, the point in posting this is to question why this particular shooting is the one he makes a speech about. It was three people. Yeah, it was over a controversial target, but it's not like it was one of the larger shootings in recent months. Either way, it's not like him getting angry about it is going to change public opinion or provide Congress with impetus, so why choose this shooting?

[QUOTE=valkery;49205266][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-obama-responds-to-gun-violence.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur[/URL] Really, the point in posting this is to question why this particular shooting is the one he makes a speech about. It was three people. Yeah, it was over a controversial target, but it's not like it was one of the larger shootings in recent months. Either way, it's not like him getting angry about it is going to change public opinion or provide Congress with impetus, so why choose this shooting?[/QUOTE] doesn't really matter if its 1 or 50, a crazy man got a gun and shot up some place, and congress is still sitting on its hands, i'm not saying anything he proposes can do anything about it, but i'm saying congress refusing to do [B][I]anything[/I][/B] is infuriating

[QUOTE=valkery;49205266][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-obama-responds-to-gun-violence.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur[/URL] Really, the point in posting this is to question why this particular shooting is the one he makes a speech about. It was three people. Yeah, it was over a controversial target, but it's not like it was one of the larger shootings in recent months. Either way, it's not like him getting angry about it is going to change public opinion or provide Congress with impetus, so why choose this shooting?[/QUOTE] Because as president it's probably part of the job to say something when an incident like this happens. Oh sorry 3 dead people isn't enough to be considered important anymore, my mistake.

[QUOTE=valkery;49205266]Really, the point in posting this is to question why this particular shooting is the one he makes a speech about. It was three people. Yeah, it was over a controversial target, but it's not like it was one of the larger shootings in recent months.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I think this particular perspective is [I]exactly what he's commenting on.[/I] When a gunman occupying a building, killing several people, injuring many others, and having a four hour armed standoff with police officers is casually dismissed on the grounds that there have been so many other shootings in recent history with considerably higher casualty tolls? That is a significant problem. Like, read the words you just typed, and then the quotes in your article, and ask yourself how it can be that you're not seeing the irony of this situation. [quote]“We can’t let [this] become normal,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “If we truly care about this — if we’re going to offer up our thoughts and prayers again, for God knows how many times, with a truly clean conscience — then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them. Period. Enough is enough.”[/quote] [QUOTE=valkery;49205266]Yeah, it was over a controversial target, but it's not like it was one of the larger shootings in recent months.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;49205344]Because as president it's probably part of the job to say something when an incident like this happens. Oh sorry 3 dead people isn't enough to be considered important anymore, my mistake.[/QUOTE] If that were the case, he'd be making an impassioned speech on it every four or five days (if going by deaths). If going by wounded, he'd be talking every single day. [url]http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015[/url] It's definitely an important issue, but if Sandy Hook and others don't change national opinion, nothing will. [editline]28th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49205369]Yeah, I think this particular perspective is [I]exactly what he's commenting on.[/I] When a gunman occupying a building and killing several people, injuring many others, is casually dismissed on the grounds that there have been so many other shootings in recent history with considerably higher casualty tolls? That is a significant problem. Like, read that words you just typed, and then the quotes in your article, and ask yourself how it can be that you're not seeing the irony of this situation.[/QUOTE] That's the point. It is normal, and it's been the trend for years. This particular one isn't going to change anything. Especially not if other, larger shootings haven't.

[QUOTE=valkery;49205386]If that were the case, he'd be making an impassioned speech on it every four or five days (if going by deaths). If going by wounded, he'd be talking every single day. [url]http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015[/url] It's definitely an important issue, but if Sandy Hook and others don't change national opinion, nothing will.[/QUOTE] he talks about it because its what people are talking about its unfortunate but only stuff that makes the news is usually worth addressing to the nation [editline]28th November 2015[/editline] specifically, shootings which can spark more political debate(eg, bringing planned parenthood into the equation) is good fuel for the fire

[QUOTE=valkery;49205386]That's the point. It is normal, and it's been the trend for years. This particular one isn't going to change anything. Especially not if other, larger shootings haven't.[/QUOTE] Change the trend in what sense? The trend of regular acts of domestic terrorism and wanton gun violence gone unchecked, or the trends of people in this country turning a blind eye to them because they want to believe that having easy access to deadly weaponry designed for the express purpose of ending human lives as efficiently and impersonally as possible is somehow making people safer?

It really is past the time for better gun control

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49205419]Change the trend in what sense? The trend of regular acts of domestic terrorism and wanton gun violence gone unchecked, or the trends of people in this country turning a blind eye to them because they want to believe that having easy access to deadly weaponry designed for the express purpose of ending human lives as efficiently and impersonally as possible is somehow making people safer?[/QUOTE] What trend are you talking about? We've seen massive decreases in the firearm homicide rate over the past few decades, it's been basically constant for a while now.

If we didn't have the entire American South holding back any form of progress, we should just ban any guns other than hunting rifles and shotguns altogether. Look at Australia, it worked for them.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49205419]Change the trend in what sense? The trend of regular acts of domestic terrorism and wanton gun violence gone unchecked, or the trends of people in this country turning a blind eye to them because they want to believe that having easy access to deadly weaponry designed for the express purpose of ending human lives as efficiently and impersonally as possible is somehow making people safer?[/QUOTE] The apathy.

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;49205450]If we didn't have the entire American South holding back any form of progress, we should just ban any guns other than hunting rifles and shotguns altogether. Look at Australia, it worked for them.[/QUOTE] There we go with this nonsense argument again. "It worked for Australia so it'll work in the USA".

[QUOTE=sgman91;49205444]What trend are you talking about? We've seen massive decreases in the firearm homicide rate over the past few decades, it's been basically constant for a while now.[/QUOTE] And yet 30,000 people a year are still killed by firearms. That is not an acceptable baseline.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49205419]Change the trend in what sense? The trend of regular acts of domestic terrorism and wanton gun violence gone unchecked, or the trends of people in this country turning a blind eye to them because they want to believe that having easy access to deadly weaponry designed for the express purpose of ending human lives as [B]efficiently and impersonally as possible[/B] is somehow making people safer?[/QUOTE] That's probably one of the more ignored points -- how impersonal it is. With almost no effort, the flick of a wrist and a the squeeze of a finger, you can leave a family without a parent or child. The occasional homicide involving a weapon is a given, as people can go to extraordinary means to get the outcome they want, and that's the kind of gun violence we see in Australia. But, it's just so ludicrously common place in the US to be brandishing weapons in shops in the name of 'rights expression', or to be packing a .45 under several layers of clothes because you have a piece of paper that allows concealed carry. I really just truly don't understand the mindset.

[QUOTE=Sableye;49205293]doesn't really matter if its 1 or 50, a crazy man got a gun and shot up some place, and congress is still sitting on its hands, i'm not saying anything he proposes can do anything about it, but i'm saying congress refusing to do [B][I]anything[/I][/B] is infuriating[/QUOTE] The thing about crazy people is, they can be normal up until the time they go crazy. And in that time collect guns. And even if they did go crazy and sought help for it, it isn't a requirement to release that information to the NICS database, and 99% of the time it isn't, so it's not included in background checks when they go to buy a gun anyway. Either way it wouldn't make a difference, sane people 'go' crazy every day

[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;49205450]If we didn't have the entire American South holding back any form of progress, we should just ban any guns other than hunting rifles and shotguns altogether. Look at Australia, it worked for them.[/QUOTE] We tried to leave once and you dirty yankees wouldn't let us

We can blame guns all we want; getting rid of them won't stop a person really intent on killing from killing. This is a people problem, not a gun problem

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49205473]‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens[/QUOTE] Oh, but there are certainly ways to mitigate numbers of firearm homicides in your country. Those ways are just slightly more feasible and realistic, and also more desireable to law-abiding people who want to own certain guns than proposing an Australia/UK solution, which would be expensive, impractical, and quite a knee-jerk reaction.

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;49205488]We can blame guns all we want; getting rid of them won't stop a person really intent on killing from killing. This is a people problem, not a gun problem[/QUOTE] yup, cause guns make it no easier, and not controlling who has them is fine

[QUOTE=valkery;49205266] Really, the point in posting this is to question why this particular shooting is the one he makes a speech about. It was three people. Yeah, it was over a controversial target, but it's not like it was one of the larger shootings in recent months. [/QUOTE] When someone brings up gun control after a large scale shooting people always use it against them by saying that they're using massacres to push some sort of agenda. Maybe this is just his way of countering that by not speaking on the subject when its the topic of the month after every shooting.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;49205500]yup, cause guns make it no easier, and not controlling who has them is fine[/QUOTE] The problem is here is that a lot of gun control advocates are for completely banning most forms of weapons from everyone, instead of trying to limit access to the mentally impaired or criminals

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;49205494]Oh, but there are certainly ways to mitigate numbers of firearm homicides in your country. Those ways are just slightly more feasible and realistic, and also more desireable to law-abiding people who want to own certain guns than proposing an Australia/UK solution, which would be expensive, impractical, and quite a knee-jerk reaction.[/QUOTE] I would like to add to this post by saying that you can start by trying to avoid guns from ending up in the hands of those who don't have a license to hold them, which is where the vast, vast majority of firearm murders fall into. Hell, according to statistics, gang shootouts are the number one environment in which gun homicide happens, so why not start there? Do things within these communities to 1. minimize gang presence in a certain area and 2. stop guns from getting to the hands of gangsters. Then, somehow try to make sure that those who do legally own firearms store them safely. Preventively, if possible. If not just have someone regularly check up on a given individual to see if they are storing their firearms correctly, preferably as a surprise visit so you don't have people scrambling to put their guns that were in the drawers inside a proper place to show the checkup man.

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;49205517]The problem is here is that a lot of gun control advocates are for completely banning most forms of weapons from everyone, instead of trying to limit access to the mentally impaired or criminals[/QUOTE] so? don't go THAT far then

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;49205518]I would like to add to this post by saying that you can start by trying to avoid guns from ending up in the hands of those who don't have a license to hold them, which is where the vast, vast majority of firearm murders fall into. Hell, according to statistics, gang shootouts are the number one environment in which gun homicide happens, so why not start there? Do things within these communities to 1. minimize gang presence in a certain area and 2. stop guns from getting to the hands of gangsters.[/QUOTE] If we improved condition of people in poverty, homicide rates would drop significantly

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;49205488]We can blame guns all we want; getting rid of them won't stop a person really intent on killing from killing. This is a people problem, not a gun problem[/QUOTE] You can't do a driveby shooting with a knife. You can't walk into a room and kill everyone in it from the doorway with a knife. You can't have an armed standoff with police officers with a knife. Removing guns from the equation will not stop somebody from committing an act of violence if they are truly committed to doing so, but it will dramatically lower the ceiling on how much damage they are capable of doing, how quickly they are able to do it, the conditions in which they're able to achieve it, etc. The huge availability of handguns and small automatic weapons, and, to a lesser extent, high capacity semi-automatic rifles in the United States is directly contributing to the problem.

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;49205488]We can blame guns all we want; getting rid of them won't stop a person really intent on killing from killing. This is a people problem, not a gun problem[/QUOTE] Says someone from the only developed nation where shootings happen so frequently.

[QUOTE=IliekBoxes;49205527]If we improved condition of people in poverty, homicide rates would drop significantly[/QUOTE] This I can absolutely agree with. Poverty is the biggest demon in the United States right now, and almost all of our criminal issues can be traced back to it. We need to take sweeping measures towards reducing poverty in the United States. We also need to institute more restrictive gun control measures.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49205541]We also need to institute more restrictive gun control measures.[/QUOTE] ...and actually effective gun [I]control[/I] measures, not kneejerk nonsense like we've seen where you ban pistol grips and other "assault-type thingies" to make groups of uneducated people feel good. None of this stops guns from ending up in the hands of those who were never allowed to hold one.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;49205474]That's probably one of the more ignored points -- how impersonal it is. With almost no effort, the flick of a wrist and a the squeeze of a finger, you can leave a family without a parent or child. The occasional homicide involving a weapon is a given, as people can go to extraordinary means to get the outcome they want, and that's the kind of gun violence we see in Australia. But, it's just so ludicrously common place in the US to be brandishing weapons in shops in the name of 'rights expression', or to be packing a .45 under several layers of clothes because you have a piece of paper that allows concealed carry. I really just truly don't understand the mindset.[/QUOTE] You have to remember that a massively huge percentage of gun homicide in the US is focused in urban areas where young men are shooting other young men, often who already have criminal backgrounds. If you take out some of these areas, the US lines up with the rest of the west when it comes to gun homicide. [QUOTE]And yet 30,000 people a year are still killed by firearms. That is not an acceptable baseline.[/QUOTE] Over 60% of those are suicides. Are you now talking about all gun deaths instead of "wanton gun violence?" The number of gun homicides sits right around 10,000.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49205463]And yet 30,000 people a year are still killed by firearms. That is not an acceptable baseline.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html"]Except with just a quick google search you can find out that 21,175 of those deaths were suicide and not homicide. It's really only 11,208 firearm homicides. Sure it's still a big number but if you really want that 30k number to go down maybe increase efforts into suicide prevention?[/URL]