Billie Joe posts photo in support of stronger gun laws #NotOneMore

[Libertine Angel]

If we're dragging drug laws into this too, you could free up a lot of prison space by having anyone caught in possession (not possession with intent to supply) be put in mandatory rehab instead of prison, because that way you'll actually help people. And legalise pot, that'll bring a nice load of tax money in. Worked for the Netherlands.

[Chin for a Day]

If we're dragging drug laws into this too, you could free up a lot of prison space by having anyone caught in possession (not possession with intent to supply) be put in mandatory rehab instead of prison, because that way you'll actually help people. And legalise pot, that'll bring a nice load of tax money in. Worked for the Netherlands.

Did that in Colorado and medical marijuana is legal in alot of states. In some states, such as NY and CA, you can legally carry a small amount.

Sounds like we are starting to change the world in this thread, or at least the US

[desertrose]

Moms Demand Action @MomsDemand · Nov 18

As a parent, @GreenDay's Billie Joe Armstrong knows what's to be lost to our nation's gun violence epidemic.

[R_Z-Log]

I've read through all the posts I missed and there was some very good discussion, that doesn't need to be rehashed.

However, I do have a big question, what was the point of posting that picture? The only thing I can think of was to stir debate on gun laws, which if that was the case, I guess it was somewhat successful. But we have run the gammit of US Gun laws, European gun laws, Austrailian gun laws and mental health issues. What good is a debate with no direction? What are our next steps? I agree with Billie, "Not one more" but how?

Plus, that picture has stirred debate here amongst a few of us. I look at that picture and I know its Billie, that he always looks like he just rolled out of bed, but how many other people will know its "that guy from Green Day" What good is posting an anti gun campaign for GD fans?

This is a subject that is very close to my heart and I just don't get the point. And my big question, Not one More, but how?

I'm just speculating and giving my opinion here, but I think it's great that he posted the picture. If you look on Instagram or Twitter (I assume... I don't use twitter), and you search #billiejoearmstrong or #notonemore, KIDS are re-posting that picture. Whether they realize it right now or not, they are involving themselves in a political conversation. One that might stay with them throughout their lives, and may possibly come to fruition when they are old enough to vote (for things like gun control laws for example). I think if nothing else, it is bringing awareness to an issue. We are in a very scary age where each generation becomes more and more apathetic toward things that actually means something, and if BJA posting a picture of himself on twitter brings awareness to a political/social issue to a generation who may never have even looked up from their iPhone's to see the world around them, then I think it did its job.

[WhiteTim]

I just wish Billie would support a better gun control group one that is not owned by Michael Bloomberg...

[.Holly]

I was trying to think of a way to say this intelligently and you did it beautifully. The real issue is that we do not identify mental illness effectively. We focus way too much ok on how the crime was committed not why.

I live 10 mIles from Sandy hook elementary and can tell you first hand how a mass shooting affects a community. Adam Lanza did not receive the care he needed for a,variety of reasons. One of the big issues is that anyone can anonymously call social services and report someone and it has to be investigated. The social workers waste their time investigating false claims instead of working with people who need it. If mental health services in the us were more effective 20 children and 6 adults would not have died

Don't feel like getting involved, but since Fuzz asked for it:

The most convincing pro-gun argument is that people will always kill and giving them access to means of doing so will not affect that. You can kill someone with any weapon. Chainsaw. Hatchet. Pencil. Knife. Should we ban all of these things? No. The problem isn't guns. The problem is negligence to mental health in our country. In most cases of mass shootings, there was a psychological problem in the mind of the murderer than was simply disregarded.

A good phrase to use is "Laws do not apply to criminals". Criminals break laws for the satisfaction of doing so. Layering on more laws will do nothing. Ban guns like you ban drugs and you are going to lead to more violence and just as easy access, except this time not documented or controlled.

Just look at the UK for an example. They passed the Second Firearms Act in 1997 as a reaction to a school shooting. Since that year, murder per 100,000 has risen and peaked at 2.1 in 2002. The rate started at 1.12/100k and hasn't even come close to that low since that year.

Overall, people will keep killing, and giving them more attention and negative reinforcement will only give them more of a kick. My town has a lot of gun owners. Most of them keep them locked up or only use them for hunting. Where are the gun crimes happening? In the poor part of my town, usually with stolen weapons. Go ahead and make guns illegal. Nothing will change.

Ok I absolutely hate seeing this pushed as a pro-gun argument. It is total rubbish. Whilst gun control will not prevent someone who is intent on carrying out a pre-meditated murder, it would stop all other kind of gun related deaths. If someone gets into an argument/fight and in the heat of the moment, punches the other person in the face instead of firing a gun, that person has a much better survival chance. And who the fuck is going to succeed on going on a random killing spree with a pencil? What a ridiculous argument. You really think Sandy Hook would have happened if you guys didn't have guns? It's quite hard to go on a killing spree without a gun, someone will kick you in the shins and that will be it over. There's also the fact that killing someone with a gun is so easy compared to hacking them to bits with something else, and that alone will reduce the amount of deaths during weapon related violence.

You have used the UK as an example as to how gun control doesn't reduce homicide rates. Well some quick googling told me that 2.4% of homicides in the UK are gun related homicides. Compare that the US where 67% of all homicides are gun related. Sixty-fucking-seven percent! You could therefore reduce your murder rate by nearly 2/3s if you could introduce UK-like gun control. That would have saved 10,000 people's lives in 2011. That sounds very worthwhile to me.

But in reality the problem does not just start and end with stricter gun control. Or stringent mental health checks. Millions of firearms are currently in circulation, and many offenders either do not have mental health problems or they have problems that slip through the system. For me the only solution is to introduce tighter restrictions on how you get guns, ban the more dangerous types (sub-automatic machine guns seem a bit unneccesary), and have stricter background checks. At the same time, the government needs to tackle the real problems: inequality, poor-education levels and the illegal drug trade. The problem isn't only the availability of guns, it's also a social and cultural one. Until these major issues are addressed, and people feel secure and well-off, gun crime will continue, restrictions or no (although hopefully at a reduced level). It's not something that can happen overnight, but if gun control is introduced with a real effort from the government to tackle the problems of inequality, hopefully future generations will be able to live without feeling the need to own a gun to protect themselves (it's literally something I've never even considered). And that's where I'm glad that I'm not in government in America. It ain't gonna be easy.

[Chin for a Day]

I'm just speculating and giving my opinion here, but I think it's great that he posted the picture. If you look on Instagram or Twitter (I assume... I don't use twitter), and you search #billiejoearmstrong or #notonemore, KIDS are re-posting that picture. Whether they realize it right now or not, they are involving themselves in a political conversation. One that might stay with them throughout their lives, and may possibly come to fruition when they are old enough to vote (for things like gun control laws for example). I think if nothing else, it is bringing awareness to an issue. We are in a very scary age where each generation becomes more and more apathetic toward things that actually means something, and if BJA posting a picture of himself on twitter brings awareness to a political/social issue to a generation who may never have even looked up from their iPhone's to see the world around them, then I think it did its job.

I think that the tweet is starting to get out more since it was first posted. The more it gets out the more it will bring awareness to a group that would not normally be involved, then yes it has done its job.

I just wish Billie would support a better gun control group one that is not owned by Michael Bloomberg...

Agreed, I do question the legitimacy of an organization led by Michael Bloomberg.

[Sofouska]

Billie Joe is stating the obvious, but I guess this isn't quite 'the obvious' for plenty of people.

In many European countries there wouldn't even be a debate about this. Having stronger gun laws is obligatory. As far as I know it's quite difficult to buy any sort of weapons where I live, since it requires plenty of permits and a psychological evaluation etc etc. and no one has a problem with it.

Guns shouldn't be outlawed, suggesting something like this is unrealistic, but getting a gun shouldn't be that easy. The buyers should go through certain strict procedures to acquire any sort of weapons.

[WhiteTim]

I think someone mentioned about the gun shows

They need to get rid of those that was the stupidest thing ever started

[Chin for a Day]

Ok I absolutely hate seeing this pushed as a pro-gun argument. It is total rubbish. Whilst gun control will not prevent someone who is intent on carrying out a pre-meditated murder, it would stop all other kind of gun related deaths. If someone gets into an argument/fight and in the heat of the moment, punches the other person in the face instead of firing a gun, that person has a much better survival chance. And who the fuck is going to succeed on going on a random killing spree with a pencil? What a ridiculous argument. You really think Sandy Hook would have happened if you guys didn't have guns? It's quite hard to go on a killing spree without a gun, someone will kick you in the shins and that will be it over. There's also the fact that killing someone with a gun is so easy compared to hacking them to bits with something else, and that alone will reduce the amount of deaths during weapon related violence.

You have used the UK as an example as to how gun control doesn't reduce homicide rates. Well some quick googling told me that 2.4% of homicides in the UK are gun related homicides. Compare that the US where 67% of all homicides are gun related. Sixty-fucking-seven percent! You could therefore reduce your murder rate by nearly 2/3s if you could introduce UK-like gun control. That would have saved 10,000 people's lives in 2011. That sounds very worthwhile to me.

But in reality the problem does not just start and end with stricter gun control. Or stringent mental health checks. Millions of firearms are currently in circulation, and many offenders either do not have mental health problems or they have problems that slip through the system. For me the only solution is to introduce tighter restrictions on how you get guns, ban the more dangerous types (sub-automatic machine guns seem a bit unneccesary), and have stricter background checks. At the same time, the government needs to tackle the real problems: inequality, poor-education levels and the illegal drug trade. The problem isn't only the availability of guns, it's also a social and cultural one. Until these major issues are addressed, and people feel secure and well-off, gun crime will continue, restrictions or no (although hopefully at a reduced level). It's not something that can happen overnight, but if gun control is introduced with a real effort from the government to tackle the problems of inequality, hopefully future generations will be able to live without feeling the need to own a gun to protect themselves (it's literally something I've never even considered). And that's where I'm glad that I'm not in government in America. It ain't gonna be easy.

First off, I am not pro-gun, inor have I advocated for it AT ALL in anything I posted. I am pro-stricter gun laws and I have said that all along. However, I have said and agree with you that the gun laws is not even the tip of the ice berg. The mental health services in this country are atrocious and need to be addressed. As you have pointed out there so many other issues involved. My main point is that stricter gun laws will not solve the issue, it will help but there are so many other issues involved. Please it is what I have been saying all along.

And, do I really believe that Sandy Hook would have happened if Adam Lanza did not have a gun??? Abso-freakin'-lutely. I did not know Adam personally, but I know plenty of people that did. Shit, my kids trick or treated at his freakin' house the Halloween before the massacre. And yes, he handed out the damn candy. What if Adam decided to be a suicide bomber instead of a gun or how about poison the lunch? Hell, he could have taken out the whole damn school. This could apply to any other mass murderer. If they want to kill, they will. Does it matter if they took out 26 or 6?

There is alot to fix and I'm tired of people thinking that anit-gun laws are going to solve everything.

I think someone mentioned about the gun shows

They need to get rid of those that was the stupidest thing ever started

It was me, and I think that is the first thing that needs to go, it is ridiculous.

[WhiteTim]

It was me, and I think that is the first thing that needs to go, it is ridiculous.

Was it? Couldn't remember who but I agree there is zero ways to properly scan the buyers and their history at a gun show no way feasible

[Chin for a Day]

Was it? Couldn't remember who but I agree there is zero ways to properly scan the buyers and their history at a gun show no way feasible

Plus, gun shows do not require back ground checks. You can walk out of a gun show with the gun, no questions asked.

[WhiteTim]

Plus, gun shows do not require back ground checks. You can walk out of a gun show with the gun, no questions asked.

That's what I mean by not scanning people properly

[cclay]

I guess I'm not alone in supporting his effort to bring attention to laws that will do nothing but save lives! I know, I know, guns don't kill people. People kill people. So stop giving guns to all the people who can't handle them.

[WhiteTim]

I guess I'm not alone in supporting his effort to bring attention to laws that will do nothing but save lives! I know, I know, guns don't kill people. People kill people. So stop giving guns to all the people who can't handle them.

Majority of gun owners are in favor of gun control as well

There needs to be a group that's level headed about this to come up cause a lot that the anti gun groups are wanting to get rid of guns period

[DookieLukie]

Ok I absolutely hate seeing this pushed as a pro-gun argument. It is total rubbish. Whilst gun control will not prevent someone who is intent on carrying out a pre-meditated murder, it would stop all other kind of gun related deaths. If someone gets into an argument/fight and in the heat of the moment, punches the other person in the face instead of firing a gun, that person has a much better survival chance. And who the fuck is going to succeed on going on a random killing spree with a pencil? What a ridiculous argument. You really think Sandy Hook would have happened if you guys didn't have guns? It's quite hard to go on a killing spree without a gun, someone will kick you in the shins and that will be it over. There's also the fact that killing someone with a gun is so easy compared to hacking them to bits with something else, and that alone will reduce the amount of deaths during weapon related violence.

You have used the UK as an example as to how gun control doesn't reduce homicide rates. Well some quick googling told me that 2.4% of homicides in the UK are gun related homicides. Compare that the US where 67% of all homicides are gun related. Sixty-fucking-seven percent! You could therefore reduce your murder rate by nearly 2/3s if you could introduce UK-like gun control. That would have saved 10,000 people's lives in 2011. That sounds very worthwhile to me.

But in reality the problem does not just start and end with stricter gun control. Or stringent mental health checks. Millions of firearms are currently in circulation, and many offenders either do not have mental health problems or they have problems that slip through the system. For me the only solution is to introduce tighter restrictions on how you get guns, ban the more dangerous types (sub-automatic machine guns seem a bit unneccesary), and have stricter background checks. At the same time, the government needs to tackle the real problems: inequality, poor-education levels and the illegal drug trade. The problem isn't only the availability of guns, it's also a social and cultural one. Until these major issues are addressed, and people feel secure and well-off, gun crime will continue, restrictions or no (although hopefully at a reduced level). It's not something that can happen overnight, but if gun control is introduced with a real effort from the government to tackle the problems of inequality, hopefully future generations will be able to live without feeling the need to own a gun to protect themselves (it's literally something I've never even considered). And that's where I'm glad that I'm not in government in America. It ain't gonna be easy.

I agree that gun related crime is deeper seeded than simply who can own guns.

However, you're missing the point. No, Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened with a pencil, but the guy got his gun illegally anyway. The crime was pre-meditated, which you said gun laws would not stop. So how is that even a good example? Also, in most minor instances of murder or violence, such as a fit of rage as you say, why would not having a gun stop someone? They could beat the person with a bat or stab them with a knife. Or use their fists.

Also, you cited that only 2.4% of UK murders are with guns. So 97.6% of murders happen by other means or weapons, even though you claimed that other weapons would not be used in place of guns. In fact, this stat proves that point that gun laws will not reduce murder, just alter means of murder. And if you claim that a murder by knife is better than murder by gun, that shows a clear anti-gun agenda.

Like I said before, I honestly don't care. I don't use guns or ever plan on using them. But of all the people I know who legally own them, they are responsible. The crime and violence for the most part is coming from illegally owned guns, so making guns illegal isn't going to fix that.

Also, it's a cultural difference in how we think. In the UK you may be fine with being told you can't do something, but the US is quite the opposite. We'd starve ourselves if not eating became illegal. It's just our mindset to want complete independence in our lives. So saying something like people who are pro-gun are ridiculous, realize that there are huge cultural differences between us and other countries.

[Guest]

You missed her point. There are fewer murders in general due to the fact that there are fuck all tools made specifically to maim and kill.

[Chin for a Day]

However, you're missing the point. No, Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened with a pencil, but the guy got his gun illegally anyway.

Adam Lanza's guns were 100% legal. Thus the need for stricter gun laws.

[DookieLukie]

You missed her point. There are fewer murders in general due to the fact that there are fuck all tools made specifically to maim and kill.

I still think that's bs. If someone is going to shootup a school, they will find a gun illegally. Like I said, most gun crimes result from illegal weapons anyway. Aside from that, in domestic arguments or bar fights, a gun or a knife would both be equally deadly.

[Guest]

I still think that's bs. If someone is going to shootup a school, they will find a gun illegally. Like I said, most gun crimes result from illegal weapons anyway. Aside from that, in domestic arguments or bar fights, a gun or a knife would both be equally deadly.

If that's the case, then why are literally 99% of the world's school shootings in the US? It's almost uniquely an American phenomenon.

Also, it's very difficult to kill someone with a knife unless you know what you're doing. People have survived over 100 knife wounds on several occasions.

[cclay]

Majority of gun owners are in favor of gun control as well

There needs to be a group that's level headed about this to come up cause a lot that the anti gun groups are wanting to get rid of guns period

I agree!!

[DookieLukie]

Majority of gun owners are in favor of gun control as well

There needs to be a group that's level headed about this to come up cause a lot that the anti gun groups are wanting to get rid of guns period

But...but...our two parties need to be extremes. No middle ground! Fuck any opposing party!

[BetterThanAir]

Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/BJAofficial/status/534530727748976640

More info on GDA: http://www.greendayauthority.com/news/4987/

YAS GAGA YAS :wub: :wub:

[.Holly]

I agree that gun related crime is deeper seeded than simply who can own guns.

However, you're missing the point. No, Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened with a pencil, but the guy got his gun illegally anyway. The crime was pre-meditated, which you said gun laws would not stop. So how is that even a good example? Also, in most minor instances of murder or violence, such as a fit of rage as you say, why would not having a gun stop someone? They could beat the person with a bat or stab them with a knife. Or use their fists.

Also, you cited that only 2.4% of UK murders are with guns. So 97.6% of murders happen by other means or weapons, even though you claimed that other weapons would not be used in place of guns. In fact, this stat proves that point that gun laws will not reduce murder, just alter means of murder. And if you claim that a murder by knife is better than murder by gun, that shows a clear anti-gun agenda.

Like I said before, I honestly don't care. I don't use guns or ever plan on using them. But of all the people I know who legally own them, they are responsible. The crime and violence for the most part is coming from illegally owned guns, so making guns illegal isn't going to fix that.

Also, it's a cultural difference in how we think. In the UK you may be fine with being told you can't do something, but the US is quite the opposite. We'd starve ourselves if not eating became illegal. It's just our mindset to want complete independence in our lives. So saying something like people who are pro-gun are ridiculous, realize that there are huge cultural differences between us and other countries.

You don't care that 10,000 lives could be saved per year by enforcing gun control? You don't care that these school massacres wouldn't happen if there weren't guns? Maybe everyone you happen to know that owns a gun is responsible, but that is an incredibly self-centred way of looking at the situation.

The point is that the homicide rate is much lower in countries with strict gun control compared to countries that don't have it. The murder rate is nearly 500% higher in the US compared to the UK for every 100,000 people. Since we introduced strict control in the UK in response to the 1996 Dunblane school shootings, we haven't had any school massacres with guns or any other kind of weapon. No school bombings, no school poisonings, no school knife massacres! People simply do not do it in the absence of guns. I don't believe for a second that Sandy Hook would have happened if guns weren't so readily available in the US.

The freedom/independence argument always crops up in these sorts of debates. Isn't loss of life the biggest loss of freedom there could possibly be? Isn't saving innocent lives more important in the grand scheme of things than you getting a bit pissy because you don't like being told what to do?

[WhiteTim]

You don't care that 10,000 lives could be saved per year by enforcing gun control? You don't care that these school massacres wouldn't happen if there weren't guns? Maybe everyone you happen to know that owns a gun is responsible, but that is an incredibly self-centred way of looking at the situation.

The point is that the homicide rate is much lower in countries with strict gun control compared to countries that don't have it. The murder rate is nearly 500% higher in the US compared to the UK for every 100,000 people. Since we introduced strict control in the UK in response to the 1996 Dunblane school shootings, we haven't had any school massacres with guns or any other kind of weapon. No school bombings, no school poisonings, no school knife massacres! People simply do not do it in the absence of guns. I don't believe for a second that Sandy Hook would have happened if guns weren't so readily available in the US.

The freedom/independence argument always crops up in these sorts of debates. Isn't loss of life the biggest loss of freedom there could possibly be? Isn't saving innocent lives more important in the grand scheme of things than you getting a bit pissy because you don't like being told what to do?

In grand schemes 10k is really nothing compared to hundreds of millions but whatever

Putting stricter gun policy or banning guns won't stop criminals or fucked up people from shooting a person or a school shooting they will find a way to do so...

Also off topic slightly but this really fucking bugs me why is it these anti gun nuts who always want to talk about school shootings only bring up the white school shootings? Oh yeah cause no one fucking cares Compton and Dallas and Chicago urban schools had shootings long before Columbine or Sandy Hooks but oh it's black kid killing black kids no big deal white kids killing white kids oh no we must ban guns...

Question is protecting a criminal more important than protecting your self? all the "how dare anyone shoot a robber that threatening your family and stealing your things a life is more important" shit...