CNN: Sirius XM radio host Michelangelo Signorile Debating Gun Control and Gun Violence

[lilbirdy25]

Ban guns? Who's going to take their crazy guns away from them? They act like a child that is afraid someone will take their toy away from them. We all have the right to carry a gun and you sure see them at protest rallies. Concealed & not concealed!! What For? What are the so AFRAID of? Just what we need a bunch of PARANOID idiots out there with guns.The sign: If Not This Time, The next time? DO WHAT?? This is insane! I don't want a gun, but those that do, you have them. Quit whining!

[fwalker94]

you people r full of shit

[AllahConsciousness]

Government is the most maniacal and dangerous institution to ever be concieved by mankind, so why would we want to give them a monopoly on the guns? Stupid commie liberals. Fuck Europe, fuck the state and fuck gun control.

[avatarmn]

Are you out of your fucking mind? Look around the world, look where there isn't government. Somalia, Afghanistan, etc... Anarchy would be the most maniacal and dangerous institution to ever be concieved by mankind, if only it happened more often. Since anarchy is virtually non-existent throughout history, that makes religion the most maniacal and dangerous institution.

[AllahConsciousness]

I never said anarchy was any better than some government gone wild. They are both equally evil. What we need is a small, responsible government that doesn't encroach on our rights.

And you are wrong about religion being more dangerous than the state. Have you ever heard about the Holocaust, the great leap forward, the Cambodian slaughter, WWI and WWII? The state has killed way more people than all the religions combined buddy.

[AllahConsciousness]

Often times governments simply use religion to inspire greater service from the masses. Such as the middle eastern states, they simply exploit the stupidity of alot of religious people to meet nefarious goals invented by THE STATE.

[avatarmn]

What you SAID was "government" was dangerous. Not large, irresponsible, encroaching gov't... just gov't. Well, the only alternative to gov't is anarchy. "The state" can mean almost anything, a wide variety of different forms and philosophies of governance and society. And one that has been virtually non-existent, so of course it was present during all wars. It's almost never absent. You might as well blame opinions for war. Opinions are the most dangerous institution ever conceieved!

[AllahConsciousness]

If you honestly think that some priest/rabbi/imam is more of a danger than a statesman, then you are the one that is out of your mind. Every famous megalomaniac in history was a statesman, not a "holy" man.

I don't support anarchy, so please don't try to pin me with that insanity. Oh and opinions aren't any sort of institution btw. ^_^

[avatarmn]

That opionions are not an institution doesn't change the fact that they're as imprecise a target for critcism as the unqualified "state" is. Specify what kind of state you mean, unless you are advocating anarchy. And I'm not saying you do support anarchy, I'm saying that if you don't you should be more precise in the things that you say.

[avatarmn]

I dropped the religion thing in my last message, so I don't know why you pressed on that. Since you bring it up again, I have to respond that many statesmen are also holy men, and use motivation and rhetoric that is as religious as it is nationalistic. (con't)

[avatarmn]

Like Hilter, Popes who waged Crusades, Kings of bygone centuries who brought religious wars in the name of both God and country, etc. Today, even the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad do it, to name only a couple among many. And there are a number of dangerous megalomaniacs who were religious and not statesmen. Bin Laden and the rest of al Qaeda, countless cult leaders... hell countless "legitimate" church leaders who preach hate.

[AllahConsciousness]

Well, the Arabs, the shadowy Al-Quaeda group, and hick church leaders don't really compare to the horrors that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and all the other socialist pricks unleashed.

The type of illigitimate government I'm talking about is a government that grabs your guns, holds you indefinately without pressing charges, levies absurd taxes, and expands itself via warfare.

[AllahConsciousness]

And I should clarify that people need some sort of government. I would agree with that totally. But most governments in the world right now and in the past are out of control. We need to always be suspicious of any government, also with any religious sect as well, I would agree. But government needs to be watched even more so.

[avatarmn]

You'll get no argument from me that government needs to be watched. Just know that when you say "state" is bad and you don't specify what kind, people are going to think that you want anarchy.

[AllahConsciousness]

And any taxes above 5% are absurd. Cut the purse strings and let the market operate as it may. Government only adds inefficiency to the circulation of any commodity, let alone the fiat paper variety.

[avatarmn]

I'm curious. On what data do you base your believe that all but 5% of our tax dolars are spent on regulating money? Did the date come from out of your ass, where you also got the idea that deregulation/lack of regulation of the economy is not what caused our current economic situation and the Great Depression, and the idea that any politician of any signficance wants to grab your guns?

[SoFlaPatriot]

A mostly fair discussion but i would have to say that Mr. Signorlie and folks in his camp are doing a bit of cherry picking. Per haps we should outlaw swimming pools, coconut trees, and cars for that matter Furthermore you cannot legislate the failures of human nature by restricting the rights of the majority. If I was looking from space I would want to know that, One, as an individual on the planet had his future decided by him and not others who believed they should think for him. Liberty.

[ccantwell6]

Stop penalizing the responsible, they will be the ones who preserve our rights.

[terminaldeity]

If you're a responsible gun owner, then you don't have to worry about anything. There is a problem, though, with circumvention of legal access. All of the recent murder sprees were carried out with legal weapons. Obviously something is wrong if such mentally ill people are able to obtain weapons. I say we require all to undergoe a full psychoanalysis, and require training courses. There is a problem with gun violence and it can be prevented, so why don't we?

[ccantwell6]

If we were in a free market society, with a sound money currency as the foundation of our economy, I believe prosperity would be more attainable to every American and the socioeconomic conditions would be more balanced which would reduce many crimes involving guns.

[rkcoon]

I normally agree with you Michelangelo, but in this case, no. The gun registration here in Canada has been such a failure that many are trying to move the government to strike it for long rifles, and having guns illegal simply makes those that own them criminals. It does not deterr someone bent on causing a crime with a firearm from doing so in the slightest. Gun laws are not the answer - having a functioning court system and proper punishement/treatment for criminals is.

[QbnSuperman]

The increase in mass shootings is a product of the anomie in society due to the economy and other social factors. People commit them because they have no fear of being stopped before they can kill themselves. If 5/10 people were armed, these individuals would know they could not reach their "goal" of harming many.

[terminaldeity]

What about police shootings? Everyone knows that they're armed but they still shoot and kill them. It's about who shoots first. If someone is crazy enough to carry out such an act, he's not going to care who else around him has a gun. He's going to start shooting until he's shot dead.

[hapspir]

"he's not going to care who else around him has a gun"

The perpetrators of mass shootings do indeed care if their victims are armed. That's why they all carry out their killing sprees in gun-free zones. Doing so significantly increases their body count.

[terminaldeity]

"That's why they all carry out their killing sprees in gun-free zones"

Dude, the guy in Pittsburgh killed three cops, and injured a few others. ALL of his victims were armed AND firing at him.

[hapspir]

I stand corrected. There are exceptions. It's just that most maniacs aren't good marksmen and therefore need soft targets. I don't know the details of the killing you mentioned, but I wish the cops had more time for practice. Swat teams shouldn't be the only ones who know how to shoot.

[terminaldeity]

"I don't know the details..."

According to the article I read, he waited behind the front door and shot the first two cops as soon as they walked in the house. Then, he had a shootout with the SWAT team actually. I believe he was wielding an assault rife and wearing a bulletproof vest. He also is allegedly a big Glenn Beck fan.

[home3363308]

You cant stop the crazy people like that. Make tougher laws if a crminal is cought with a gun. Not ban them.

[terminaldeity]

I never suggested banning guns. Enforcement only works after the fact, meaning that you have to wait for the crime to be committed before enforcing the law. And you can't enforce anything on the guy who shoots himself after carrying out a murder. I'm talking about prevention via education, training, psych evaluations, and more thorough background checks.

[home3363308]

Guns are a bad word in schools now so they will never have education. Since its a right people should have to pass a test to own a gun. A Psych eval is invadiing someones privacy and medical records. Most gun aren't regestered that are used in crimes so a tougher back ground check would also be pointless. In missouri the only think a resident has to do to buy a gun is to have an FBI check done. The rest of the laws an restrictions prevent some people from keeping their rights.

[terminaldeity]

Whole lot of misinformation there. Virtually all of the recent murder sprees were carried out with legally acquired guns. You'd know this if you actually read anything. And how is a psych eval. invading privacy? And even if it was, it's too important to ignore. People with mental illness are significantly more inclined to commit acts of violence. Why do you think people go on murder sprees anyway?

[home3363308]

Should you need a Psych eval to use other rights like free speech and to vote. The right means there should be no questions asked. In those states where guns where used, you had to get a liscence to buy the gun. I agree they may go on a shooting spree. Should we take away guns from cancer victims that are terminal. They might commit suicides or take away guns from divorced couples. One might kill the ex. Look at the community college shooting. We cant make a perfect world.

[home3363308]

The only laws that should be there is if someone that shouldnt have a gun get caught with one. Then there should be stiff penalties. Everything else just takes away right of normal people.

[QbnSuperman]

to Mr. Signorile; I'm sorry sir, but read the constitution. A "well organized militia" cannot keep the goverment in check if we are stuck with the pea shooters you want us to have. You want them to come knocking on our doors and take our 'assault rifles.' But the year after that it will be our other guns, and after that our knives, and after that our freedom of speech. (eg: Cuba. The communists disarmed the people when they came to power.) Don't give the gov't control over your life.