Done. ng, ng.

Done, easy starte3d late.

Unfortunately Dr Who you are wrong on this one. You have bought all the twisted statistical evidence that was portrayed and long since debunked. Simple facts are we bought back most of the guns (and yes there are still thousands in circulation) and then controlled who could have them. There are still lots stolen and in the hands of bad people, yet since 1996 we have not had a single mass shooting in Australia. Not a single one. It's not rocket science, if they are hard to get a crazy person is unlikely to obtain one and let loose. To allow high powered semi automatics is just plain dumb, pure and simple. The only place they belong is in the hands of the military or highly trained members of law enforcement.

Irritating, yeah, I'll cop that one on the chin.

Start

ding

done

Phil, unfortunately DrWho is part of a large swath of the US population who have bought into the the gun lobby's (the NRA's) propaganda. I hope the truth breaks through before too many more mass killings (in 2017 averaging one per day).

Well, America, I am of the opinion that since nothing was done following the murders of those 20 school children in (I forget the name of the place; so many names) nothing will ever be done. Perhaps you may dare hope that if the number of mass murders increases to several a month your Congress will, reluctantly I suppose, take some action.

EZPZ, 9.

Penguin: when was the last mass shooting committed by an NRA member?

Then ask, when was the last mass shooting committed by a liberal Democrat?

B.T.W. Who stopped the Texas Church shooter? The first responders were armed citizens. The police only got to the shooter after he was dead.

Sorry Phil, you don't get to have your own 'facts'. When statistics don't meet liberal expectations they are 'debunked'. Sorry, but I'm not having any of it. Anyone claiming Australia's 1996 gun laws had a demonstrable effect on gun deaths is lying.

drwho, the questions of NRA and liberal shooters is a total red herring. Nice try at distraction.

The suggestion that it is important that a shooter stopped another shooter is also a distraction.

Denying what happened in Australia is your choice to be deliberately blind to their reality. Calling liar does not change the reality.

The problem is that guns are omnipresent. More guns correlates with more mass shootings. The correlation is for mass shootings in the United States and in Australia.

And yes Phil, in spite of laws that should have prevented the Texas church shooter from getting a gun, a man who escaped from a mental institution, was court-martialed and dishonorably discharged from the US Air Force was able to get a gun and kill 26 people.

No Penguin, you are inventing what happened in Australia. You cannot go back and try it over without the 1996 gun ban and compare the results. Statistical analysis is mostly useless too. It is just as reasonable to suppose the downward trend in gun deaths would have continued with or without the 1996 gun ban.

drwho, I was not comparing gun death. I wrote 'mass shootings'.

Speaking of red herrings, mass shootings account for a very small percentage of gun deaths. If you are serious about stopping gun violence then you must address hand guns, not so called assault weapons.

Another distraction. Phil wrote about mass shootings. I commented on mass shootings.

A fair question might be why I am not as concerned about hand guns. And I am concerned about hand guns, see http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/Lemieuxijcjs2\n014vol9issue1.pdf, but one must start somewhere and the mass shootings with assault weapons seems a reasonable point given the number of mass shootings that are being discussed.

And it is a multi-facted problem, to use the wording of https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/\n21/gun-control-debate-mass-shootings-gun-viol\nence.

So addressing a problem that gets bigger headlines rather than the problem that kills more people is your priority? Or is that a distraction?

And drwho, it is curious that you don't embrace one of the primary tenets of the namesake of your avatar, a character who eschews violence and guns.

No, addressing the problem that gets headlines is simply logical because it is what attracts attention. Not a distraction, that's your game.

Okay, there it is. You want to affect cosmetic change, not real change.

dng

You really are doing a great job of misreading what I write. Rephrased, when solving a complex problem it makes sense to solve part of the problem and then to solve other parts of it.

B.T.W. the remarks about NRA vs liberal Democrats were not a distraction. They were partly an exercise in button pushing. I enjoy that. But mainly they were an answer to the logical fallacy in which the NRA is portrayed as an evil organization that wants more gun violence and mass shootings, thus making any position they take on the issue illegitimate.

When solving a complex problem it makes sense to attack the part which will produce the greatest results. Apparently you measure results in headlines, not human lives.

No to both of the last points. First, the NRA is mostly funded by the gun industry. It's interest is in increasing gun sales. Attributing other intent is not germane.

Your logic regarding my motivation is upside down. And when solving a complex problem it makes sense to solve the parts that are accessible first and then to continue working on the rest. Claiming that I don't care about human lives is, I suppose, intended as more button pushing. Or you are simply a jackass (with apologies to donkeys).

Back to the first responder, one of them was a life long NRA member.

Yup, button pushing is fun. But then maybe not for you. How does it feel to have your motives questioned? It's something I and the NRA have to put up with every time we engage gun grabbers on this issue.

drwho, congratulations. You did succeed in pushing my buttons. And thus in further distraction.

Please note that I did not question your motives. I questioned your reasoning and your allegations. Not the same thing. The facts are stated clearly enough in the studies I have linked before.

And neither today nor before did I suggest gun grabbing. After an earlier mass shooting I did suggest the idea of a voluntary gun buy back program. And I am very much in favor of restrictions on sales of military hardware as well as blocking sales of any gun to those who have been found guilty of violent crimes, including domestic violence.

I make no apology to the NRA. They are amoral, seeking to lobby on behalf of their clients who manufacture weapons. I'm opposed to the money that finds its way into our politics, be it from corporations I like or those I don't like or from unions. But money in politics is only one of the factors that keep gun sales going. Other factors include the fear generated by the NRA that Obama or Clinton or whomever is out to grab your gun, not to mention fear of Sharia Law, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, the greedy poor, etc. The tactics used by the NRA, some of which you have parroted here, are despicable.

Penguin, For those who believe that the 2nd Amendment was not meant to keep slave patrols from being disarmed , and say that they support no restrictions on gun ownership. I would ask them, Do you accept that all these deaths are just the price of freedom to own any gun with no restrictions and if they agree that it is okay with them if more innocent people are slaughtered for that "right"?

Penguin, you did say I bought into the NRA propaganda and you continue to vilify them. And you say I am parroting some of the NRA's despicable arguments. What am I to conclude?

Before there is any discussion of new gun restrictions as a result of this last shooting we need to examine why the current laws did not stop the carnage. Devin Kelley could not have legally purchased his gun under the current law. He had to lie about his mental health history on the background questionnaire that he filled out when he purchased the gun. That is a felony. Possibly that problem can be fixed, but the failure of the old law in part because the Air Force dropped the ball, but also because the shooter himself did not comply with it is a very weak argument for more laws.

Tuco, if you wish to avoid being slaughtered on the alter of gun rights, let me suggest you can significantly improve your odds by avoiding gun free zones and establishments.

So DrWho, you have no problem with these sacrifices? It is the price we must pay for unfettered gun ownership?

The 2 guns purchased by Kelley in Colorado were legally sold to him. It is difficult to legally or illegally purchase something that is not produced.

There is no number of deaths or shootings that will change your mind drwho. Your belief in what you assume to be the true meaning of the 2nd amendment is total. No matter how many must die to preserve it.