Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColDayMan

Gun Rights

Recommended Posts

I'm well aware that the Founders made mistakes.  (Heck, we fought the Civil War over their biggest one.)  But I don't think constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms was one of those mistakes, and no, the events of today don't change my mind about that.  Plane crashes are dramatic and heartbreaking and the television cameras eat it up, but working to minimize such tragedies does not equate to a case for banning air travel entirely.  The same applies to high-visibility abuses of the right to keep and bear arms (and that's assuming that this shooter obtained his weapons lawfully, which may or may not be the case but is also not particularly relevant).  In fact, the heat of the moment generated by a rare, high-visibility event is exactly the wrong state of mind in which to suddenly start tearing away at our constitutional architecture.

 

Then what do you suggest be done to confront the gratuitous amount of violence in the United States? If banning guns is not an option, then what are our options? Would you be against making it harder for people to obtain guns? Perhaps requiring background checks, psychological evaluations, training, and other measures to ensure that those who own guns are stable and also knowledgeable on how to store and operate a gun. If making it more difficult to own a gun is off the table, then are there other areas we could make changes? Perhaps increasing funding for anti-bullying programs, mental health care, anger management programs in schools, and other measures would help the situation we are in.

 

Gun violence, and violence in general, is a huge problem in America. Clearly, something needs to be done. If gun control measures are out of the question, we still need to confront why people go on these killing sprees. As CBC and others mentioned earlier, a reoccurring theme in all of these mass shootings is the mental state of the shooters/killers. Why do we ignore and stigmatize mental health issues in this country? Doing so only allows for mental problems to foster and lead to the issues we are facing today. If we didn't demonize and ignore mental health problems and provided more funding to mental health programs, we might start to reduce the amount of violent crimes committed by mentally unstable individuals.

 

With that said, I personally believe it should be harder for individuals to own guns and I think certain guns/weapons should not be available. In my opinion, these restrictions could be coupled with the aforementioned  funding for mental health and anti-bullying initiatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your service to our country, Kyle. Take care of yourself. To stay on topic, I've made some deletions including of my own text. And so we discuss gun rights...

 

Gunsorchildren_zpse117289c.gif


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm well aware that the Founders made mistakes.  But I don't think constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms was one of those mistakes, and no, the events of today don't change my mind about that.  Plane crashes are dramatic and heartbreaking and the television cameras eat it up, but working to minimize such tragedies does not equate to a case for banning air travel entirely.  The same applies to high-visibility abuses of the right to keep and bear arms (and that's assuming that this shooter obtained his weapons lawfully, which may or may not be the case but is also not particularly relevant).  In fact, the heat of the moment generated by a rare, high-visibility event is exactly the wrong state of mind in which to suddenly start tearing away at our constitutional architecture.

 

Then what do you suggest be done to confront the gratuitous amount of violence in the United States? If banning guns is not an option, then what are our options? ...

Don't expect an answer. What you are seeing is "stalling".  Fill the page with words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, I spent the day pedaling through Chardon where I mused on that punk who borrowed his uncle's pistol and put a bullet in one of his classmate's spinal nerve and put three others in the grave.  If you own a gun in America, you don't have to handle it in a responsible way.  Kids die, moms cry, T.S.

 

It was a beautiful day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A man in China today went on a stabbing spree at a primary school there.  Care to guess how many lost their lives?

 

None.

 

How many Americans die from violent crime vs other industrialized nations?

 

Exactly.  I mentioned this today talking with a few people on campus.  Compare our murder rate (by guns) to that of Canada, UK, France, Australia, Germany, and more.  These are all countries with similar incomes, HDI, and living standards.  Something needs to be done in this country as far as getting guns off the streets go.

 

On the same token, I feel that people have the right to protect themselves, they have that right no matter what your opinion is on the subject.  I was reading a story today, I think it was in the Dispatch, where someone killed a 17 year-old kid for breaking into their house.  If someone is in your house threatening you, I don't expect you to sit back and let them hurt, or even kill you.  Get out the gun and shoot them.  People get their concealed carry and they have that right.  Look back to the people who do these mass shootings and look how they get their guns.  The mall shooting last week in Oregon was by a kid who stole the gun from his friend.  There are so many routes and ways you can look into this, and you are going to have opinions on both sides that are strong and present really good points.  In the grand scheme of things, something is going wrong in this country on a certain level where other countries are getting it right.  Yes, what happened in Norway was wrong, but the EU is obviously doing something right on all levels of crime, especially when it comes to guns.  Also notice how when there is one major mass shooting, it seems like another follows shortly after.  I think the media plays into this stuff way too much, and really can make these tragedies that much worse.

 

With that said, I also think it is pathetic that not even a few hours into the shooting people are already debating and bi###### about gun control.  This is one of those issues that we will be fighting, and have been fighting for a very long time.  Yes, this incident reinforces something needs to be done, but for crying out loud, 20 children have lost their lives today and in typical f'ed up society bickering, we already turn to something as ridiculous as people throwing around what they think should be done.  My thoughts go to the parents and families who have lost someone today.  I still can't put into words, let alone imagine what they are going through...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for opening myself up to being accused of being "unpatriotic," "against freedom", or whatever else may come my way for saying this, but not all "rights" are equal and perhaps the Founding Fathers made a mistake with the Second Amendment, or at the very least in the ambiguity in the way it was written.  Sometimes we act like the Founders were infallible gods and I just don't buy it.  We have the power to govern ourselves and make decisions about freedoms and laws that are more realistic for the time period in which we live.  It's not the late 18th century anymore.

 

The Framers were pretty close to infallible on issues of individual liberty, well for white males anyway.  They even allowed for the idea that the Constitution might need to be changed, so they added a way to do that....with great difficulty.  2/3 of each House of Congress, and 3/4 of the state legislatures.    The process has only screwed up once, and it fixed itself.

 

You won't get this one, for a lot of reasons.  It's about as likely as allowing the government to assess everyone in the nation's "mental health" (as they define it) and limit their rights.  Or even detain them.  This, BTW, isn't all that far from what European nations do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...  I think the media plays into this stuff way too much, and really can make these tragedies that much worse.

 

With that said, I also think it is pathetic that not even a few hours into the shooting people are already debating and bi###### about gun control.  This is one of those issues that we will be fighting, and have been fighting for a very long time.  Yes, this incident reinforces something needs to be done, but for crying out loud, 20 children have lost their lives today and in typical f'ed up society bickering, we already turn to something as ridiculous as people throwing around what they think should be done.  ...

I don't agree.  We have to talk about this.  The mistake was when we ignored it and presumed that the status quo of lax regulation presented by the NRA was what was best for America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA owns this.  Gun limitations need to be put back on the table at the national level.  It is a logical fallacy to assert that the more guns there are the safer a society is. 

 

I heard on NPR today 58k gun stores in US.  Screw the messenger, tell me why we need 58K gun stores in the US?

 

If someone snapped like this at NRA HQ it sure would make for an interesting debate.  I saw others musing that if this happened to a bunch of politicians there may be some action as well.  I doubt much will happen, but I expect some blow back on this.

 

These things have been happening much more frequently.  Time to lift the moratorium on the debate on guns in this country.  Eff you NRA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...  I think the media plays into this stuff way too much, and really can make these tragedies that much worse.

 

With that said, I also think it is pathetic that not even a few hours into the shooting people are already debating and bi###### about gun control.  This is one of those issues that we will be fighting, and have been fighting for a very long time.  Yes, this incident reinforces something needs to be done, but for crying out loud, 20 children have lost their lives today and in typical f'ed up society bickering, we already turn to something as ridiculous as people throwing around what they think should be done.  ...

I don't agree.  We have to talk about this.  The mistake was when we ignored it and presumed that the status quo of lax regulation presented by the NRA was what was best for America.

 

I am throwing around my own conclusion, but with what happening in Oregon, they put so much attention on these kind of events that it is almost like the next shooter has to outdo them, they have to cause more damage.  Not only that, but look how much attention they give to each shooter.  The whole deal with his brother and Facebook.  Forget the whole 15 seconds of fame, these shooters get international attention.  I was finding out stuff about the shooting from South African newspapers.

 

 

The media?  NRA?  I really don't care about either right now.  What I am saying is that there are 20 sets of parents/guardians out there that are grieving, they are going through the unimaginable.  They have to bury their children because of some punk lowlife.  I am thinking how the picturesque New England town (seems so similar to Chardon), this school, these families are going to get through this.  When I lived in Florida there were days when I had to pick up my little cousins from school who were in this very same age bracket.  It literally makes me sick to think that someone target these kids.  When you hear about these shootings you think not again.  But today when I heard about this one, I literally felt sick.  There were so many things I was thinking about all at once about this shooting.  These kids have had their lives cut short, brothers and sisters lost someone today, families are going to take a long time to recover.  I don't give two sh*ts about the NRA or the media right now.  There is a process of mourning and condolences that you give this town and its residents, and I think they deserve that.  Do we need to talk about it? Yes.  Do we need to act on it?  Most certainly.  But these wounds are as fresh as it can get, and we already have people protesting outside the White House.   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA owns this.  Gun limitations need to be put back on the table at the national level.  It is a logical fallacy to assert that the more guns there are the safer a society is. 

 

I heard on NPR today 58k gun stores in US.  Screw the messenger, tell me why we need 58K gun stores in the US?

 

If someone snapped like this at NRA HQ it sure would make for an interesting debate.  I saw others musing that if this happened to a bunch of politicians there may be some action as well.  I doubt much will happen, but I expect some blow back on this.

 

These things have been happening much more frequently.  Time to lift the moratorium on the debate on guns in this country.  Eff you NRA. 

 

There's never been a moratorium. The debate's continued, but the legal ownership side has been winning rather handily.  This will continue.  The anti-gun call for a "dialogue" whenever there's a tragedy is at best the boy crying wolf.  Tragedies preceded most major gun-restrictive laws, and none of those laws seemed to do any good.

 

In part, the debate's so unbalanced because knowledgeable leaders know that a serious attempt at gun confiscation would backfire in a way that would make Prohibition look tame.  50 to 75 million Americans own guns, which means that two percent of them taking a "use them or lose them" approach means a milllion insurrectionaries.  This is a conservative estimate.

 

For the most part, though. the reason is the majority sees the right to be armed as an esssential liberty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...  I think the media plays into this stuff way too much, and really can make these tragedies that much worse.

 

With that said, I also think it is pathetic that not even a few hours into the shooting people are already debating and bi###### about gun control.  This is one of those issues that we will be fighting, and have been fighting for a very long time.  Yes, this incident reinforces something needs to be done, but for crying out loud, 20 children have lost their lives today and in typical f'ed up society bickering, we already turn to something as ridiculous as people throwing around what they think should be done.  ...

I don't agree.  We have to talk about this.  The mistake was when we ignored it and presumed that the status quo of lax regulation presented by the NRA was what was best for America.

 

I am throwing around my own conclusion, but with what happening in Oregon, they put so much attention on these kind of events that it is almost like the next shooter has to outdo them, they have to cause more damage.  Not only that, but look how much attention they give to each shooter.  The whole deal with his brother and Facebook.  Forget the whole 15 seconds of fame, these shooters get international attention.  I was finding out stuff about the shooting from South African newspapers.

 

 

The media?  NRA?  I really don't care about either right now.  What I am saying is that there are 20 sets of parents/guardians out there that are grieving, they are going through the unimaginable.  They have to bury their children because of some punk lowlife.  I am thinking how the picturesque New England town (seems so similar to Chardon), this school, these families are going to get through this.  When I lived in Florida there were days when I had to pick up my little cousins from school who were in this very same age bracket.  It literally makes me sick to think that someone target these kids.  When you hear about these shootings you think not again.  But today when I heard about this one, I literally felt sick.  There were so many things I was thinking about all at once about this shooting.  These kids have had their lives cut short, brothers and sisters lost someone today, families are going to take a long time to recover.  I don't give two sh*ts about the NRA or the media right now.  There is a process of mourning and condolences that you give this town and its residents, and I think they deserve that.  Do we need to talk about it? Yes.  Do we need to act on it?  Most certainly.  But these wounds are as fresh as it can get, and we already have people protesting outside the White House.   

 

Obama handled it well.  I'll give him that.  Then Bloomberg stepped right in the feces with his response.  The Second Amendment Lobby is very quick to react, sometimes to the point of being proactive.  The arguments start early because the issue can be as emotional as the tragedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NRA owns this.  Gun limitations need to be put back on the table at the national level.  It is a logical fallacy to assert that the more guns there are the safer a society is. 

 

I heard on NPR today 58k gun stores in US.  Screw the messenger, tell me why we need 58K gun stores in the US?

 

If someone snapped like this at NRA HQ it sure would make for an interesting debate.  I saw others musing that if this happened to a bunch of politicians there may be some action as well.  I doubt much will happen, but I expect some blow back on this.

 

These things have been happening much more frequently.  Time to lift the moratorium on the debate on guns in this country.  Eff you NRA. 

 

There's never been a moratorium. The debate's continued, but the legal ownership side has been winning rather handily.  This will continue.  The anti-gun call for a "dialogue" whenever there's a tragedy is at best the boy crying wolf.  Tragedies preceded most major gun-restrictive laws, and none of those laws seemed to do any good.

 

In part, the debate's so unbalanced because knowledgeable leaders know that a serious attempt at gun confiscation would backfire in a way that would make Prohibition look tame.  50 to 75 million Americans own guns, which means that two percent of them taking a "use them or lose them" approach means a milllion insurrectionaries.  This is a conservative estimate.

 

For the most part, though. the reason is the majority sees the right to be armed as an esssential liberty.

 

 

And you reply typically.

 

Nowhere was I calling for guns to be taken back from people, nor did I speak of prohibition,but that's where you went. 

 

A study does not exist that shows that unfettered ownership of guns makes a society safer. 

 

8. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

 

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states. Citations here.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obama handled it well.  I'll give him that.  Then Bloomberg stepped right in the feces with his response.  The Second Amendment Lobby is very quick to react, sometimes to the point of being proactive.  The arguments start early because the issue can be as emotional as the tragedy.

The NRA took their Facebook page down immediately!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno man, people say wait to talk about it then the time passes and it's forgotten.

 

The time is now, before the next shiny thing comes along.

 

Oh I agree.  Here's my point:

 

I am tired of the media giving the attention to the shooter.  I just watched a great special on NBC where they were focusing on the town, the people, and hearing personal stories of unfortunately tragedy, but also heroics.  I don't want to hear about the shooter's brother's Facebook and how 14,000 people on Facebook started going crazy over the wrong guy.  I wanted to see what international media outlets were talking about on the story, and I was getting South African articles about the shooter and what they knew about him and what his past was like.  It sounds bad, and in a lot of cases is not what the media is going after, but they to an extent glorify the shooter.  There are people out there with some serious problems.  This guy obviously had them, and we probably will never know what was going in his head.  It doesn't matter how many laws you put into place, you're always going to have those people out there who are insane and will "do what the voices in their head were telling them to do" or what ever else sick stuff is going on in there. There are going to be people that get access to guns no matter how tough you make it for getting them. We need to as a country tackle issues dealing with guns head on.  Australia, a country with 22.8 million people does not have near the population that the US does, or the history and social issues, but they have very comparable living standards and diversity levels.  In Sydney and Melbourne, cities with over 4.5 million and 4 million people respectively, you rarely hear about murders and shootings.  I live in the suburbs of Youngstown, a city with 65,000 people... I hear about shootings on a weekly basis. Look at our major cities in Chicago and Detroit, which could be considered some of the most dangerous cities in the developed world.  So how did that kid on the south side get his gun that killed the 15 year-old?  It's not the guy with the concealed carry standing next to me in the checkout line that I am worried about, or think will be the one that is going to shoot up the place.  It is the kid who is the introvert in school, the one who acts irrational, the people in the low income neighborhoods in the inner city with high crime that do not have access to the right services.  These are the ones who find access to the weapons and cause issues that we watch on our evening news.  We are not taking the right approach (and certainly not enough action on all levels in this country) how to deal with these types of people or crimes.  I am not saying everyone person who suffers mental illness/issues or every neighborhood in the inner city needs to go into lock down, but we certainly need to start giving it the time of day instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying "we will deal with it later."  There was a man today who said it best: We don't need to go over this debate today, but we certainly can't keep putting it on the back burner.  President Obama has handled this issue perfectly.  He has shown sorrow and realized that we as a nation need to grieve and give our condolences, but in the weeks to come, we need to take some serious action against these types of crimes.

 

It's like we have become immune to these tragedies.  We grieve, we come together as a nation, we see these powerful images that really give you hope that we can become stronger and have a different outcome in the end.  A week passes, the nation has moved on with its business, and it doesn't seem like long before we have another Arizona, Chardon, Wisconsin temple, the mall.... and of all places, a kindergarten class.  I am not saying we shouldn't talk about it, but right now, instead of debating and going into the myriad of issues that can lead away from the topic of guns, I think we should focus on this town and what they're going through.  I hate to see another shooting, but it is at a whole new level when you are talking about this age group... it really makes you think twice about stuff.  Like I said, I would pick my little cousins up at their school in this same age group and I can't imagine why someone would want to cause harm to these little kids who come out with big smiles on their faces to give you the biggest news of the day which involved being the star student for the week.  I cannot fathom this kind of stuff; our nation is messed up when it comes to gun laws.

 

In the gist of things:

 

-I believe people have the right to defend themselves

-If they own guns, make sure they have the proper training with those guns

-Messed up people in this nation will still find ways to get their hands on weapons that harm and kill people (not everyone abides to laws written in Washington)

-The media needs to give info on the shooter to at least give the public knowledge who it was, but I don't need their personal stories in life... 26 people lost their lives today... not 27 when they count the shooter.  That's just how I feel

 

I most definitely think we need to talk about it, and come together as a nation to combat gun crimes.  But right now, I am thinking and praying (not a very religious person) for the 26 people who lost their lives today and the pain these families have to go through for a long time to come. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obama handled it well.  I'll give him that.  Then Bloomberg stepped right in the feces with his response.  The Second Amendment Lobby is very quick to react, sometimes to the point of being proactive.  The arguments start early because the issue can be as emotional as the tragedy.

The NRA took their Facebook page down immediately!

 

It was probably getting spammed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the gist of things:

 

-I believe people have the right to defend themselves

-If they own guns, make sure they have the proper training with those guns

-Messed up people in this nation will still find ways to get their hands on weapons that harm and kill people (not everyone abides to laws written in Washington)

-The media needs to give info on the shooter to at least give the public knowledge who it was, but I don't need their personal stories in life... 26 people lost their lives today... not 27 when they count the shooter.  That's just how I feel

 

I most definitely think we need to talk about it, and come together as a nation to combat gun crimes.  But right now, I am thinking and praying (not a very religious person) for the 26 people who lost their lives today and the pain these families have to go through for a long time to come. 

 

The thing is, laws passed during an emotional time aren’t usually very well thought out.  Plus, the gun issue is already a visceral one to begin with.  Up through 1994, it always seemed that incidents like this one led to the latest gun control measure being passed.  At some point during the late 1990s, enough people realized that these laws weren’t making a real difference to tip the scales.  Now, it’s seen as a tragedy, but not a cause for governmental preventive action.

 

Indeed, there’s some suspicion among gun owners that some of these incidents are staged in order to provoke a general reaction against gun ownership.  We pretty much know that’s what “Fast and Furious” was all about.  I personally don’t believe that’s commonplace, but I think there’s something to it.  The Sikh temple and movie theater shootings smell like it.

 

Lately, the reaction to these shootings is usually “we don’t want to grab guns, just keep them away from people like this”.  Here’s the problem:  there’s never a valid before-the-fact definition of why this particular shooter was different, and how keeping guns away from him would not keep them away from the general population.

 

I only see two ways to make such incidents completely go away:

A) A complete mental health screening of the entire population, with the government having access to the results and the authority to act upon them.  Bad idea, on SO many levels.

 

B) A complete ban on the private ownership of weapons.  The drawbacks:  it won’t work and will trigger a very serious insurrection.

 

I think we’re facing the same dilemma we did with alcohol.  There may be cures, but they’re worse than the disease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E Rocc, you're nothing if not consistent...in being wrong.

 

Just because no legislation will ever be perfect does not mean that the unabated growth of gun rights needs to continue.  There is a happy medium here.  Unfortunately the NRA does not want that medium. 

 

Easy access to guns is not the only reason why tragedies like this happen, but you're lying to yourself if you don't at least admit that it's in the top three or four reasons.  Mental health is obviously another one.

 

At the end of the day, the citizens of this country get what they deserve (note: None of the victims of these shootings deserved their fate, but as a country we cannot be surprised that this keeps happening).  Sorry if that sounds harsh, but if people don't wake up after this to the culture we have created that allows our mentally ill to suffer, that allows anyone to have access to a gun that wants it, that places a value a violence and killing, then these things are going to continue to happen.  And the blood is on the hands of those that sit idly by and imply that nothing can be done by saying things like "Evil exists.  Sorry."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The framers can't be infallible. They were human beings. And they knew they weren't infallible because they created a process whereby the Constitution could be amended so we could grow as a nation. We thought guns were important in 1776 in order to raise a militia and defend the nation from a tyrannical government. Today a smattering of fear-minded conspiracy theorists still believe this is a valid reason today. But a majority of NRA members support more gun control than does the NRA (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-and-gun-control-poll-gun-owners-colorado-theater-shooting-batman-2012-7).

 

So could the framers have envisioned the leaders of gun-rights advocates gaining the very tyranny they sought to restrain?


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erocc, if you really think these incidents are staged, I can't help you.  You've crossed into tinfoil hat territory.

 

I will say that we don't need universal mental health screening, but maybe mental health screening as part of licensing to legally own guns.  Of course, things like thinking some shadowy enemy is sending shooters to massacre crowds of people in order to create the political conditions to pass legislation to keep guns out of the hands of shooters who want to massacre crowds of people might keep you from getting that license, in my ideal world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Indeed, there’s some suspicion among gun owners that some of these incidents are staged in order to provoke a general reaction against gun ownership.

 

I hate it when right-wingers smoke pot. People act in their own self-interest. If they feel that shooting up a bunch of people is in their own self-interest, they do it. There's no other motivation.

 

Fact is, this guy could have strapped a bomb to himself and done just as much damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it how this is now a "morality issue" or that we must only chalk it up to "evil" and leave it at that.  Does the United States have a higher proportion of "evil" people than other countries?  Is the United States less "moral" than other Western countries, despite our significantly higher belief in a higher power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Indeed, there’s some suspicion among gun owners that some of these incidents are staged in order to provoke a general reaction against gun ownership.

 

I hate it when right-wingers smoke pot. People act in their own self-interest. If they feel that shooting up a bunch of people is in their own self-interest, they do it. There's no other motivation.

 

Fact is, this guy could have strapped a bomb to himself and done just as much damage.

 

First, that's quite an assumption you've made, and second, it's an absolute straw man argument, because they're two entirely different things. He would have had to build the bomb himself, not take it out of a drawer and go. Isn't that a significant difference? Doesn't that change the question? I'll take my chances with this non-existent wave of homegrown bombers. We've had exactly how many of those since Oklahoma City? Which, if I recall correctly, led to a LOT of changes in how we monitor for homegrown terrorists. And yet we do nothing in response to school shootings other than try to turn schools into fortresses.

 

Moral cowardice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third-world countries without gun access deal with bombings involving significant loss of life quite often. Most don't even make the U.S. media because the stories don't get ratings. Fix the people first -- we've put so much effort into our young ladies at the expense of boys that the young men have been made to feel expendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of the time these mass shooting murders have serious mental defects and are on then off anti psychotic meds.

This where you look to at least try to remedy the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Have you ever heard anyone suggest that any of these mass shooting are not the result of someone with a mental health disorder?  It goes without saying that the guy is a complete nutjob to go into an elementary school and open fire.

 

Increasing access to mental health treatment might help limit these mass shootings, but not as much as a ban on the type of weapons which give the great majority of these cowards the nerve to even try to pull something like this off.

 

No matter what it says on the NRA Crest, guns do kill people and it makes killing people much easier physically and psychologically.  Just like most of you hunters would never try and take a Buck down with your knife, most massacres would never happen if the gunman (and, yes, it almost always is a "gunman") had to do things the old fashioned way.

 

At the very least, we need much, much more responsibility from the people who choose to own guns.  If we can't reinstitute some type of assault weapon ban, maybe people who just have to own those weapons must purchase a liability insurance policy as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of the time these mass shooting murders have serious mental defects and are on then off anti psychotic meds.

This where you look to at least try to remedy the problem.

 

Can we identify them before they commit these acts?  Or are we only able to conclude that they have "serious mental defects" after the fact?

 

You're right, mental health issues are a big part of the issue.  So is the violent nature of our culture.  And, whether you want to admit it, so are guns.  All three and several other issues need to be addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third-world countries without gun access deal with bombings involving significant loss of life quite often. Most don't even make the U.S. media because the stories don't get ratings. Fix the people first -- we've put so much effort into our young ladies at the expense of boys that the young men have been made to feel expendable.

 

What country is "without gun access," where that means what it sounds like - no way to get guns that can easily kill people (let's just say assault weapons/handguns for now) and regularly experiences mass civilian casualties from bombings? I don't read as much world news as I used to, but most of the bombings I hear about are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon - countries where 'gun control' is hardly a serious thought. And again, we're talking about the United States, and I don't see why we'd suddenly see a spike in bombings if a certain category of firearms were restricted.

 

And again, I am not arguing that gun control = no violence, no gun deaths. I am arguing that it can and should mean less. Nothing else. It has worked in some other countries. In others it's nothing but an unenforced law, or not even a thought. That neither means it is destined to succeed or fail in the United States. My position is that current efforts are hardly serious, do not constitute a real, serious effort to restrict private gun ownership to reduce gun violence, and we should make a real effort. To not make that effort is cowardly and an abdication of the responsibility of the government of the United States to guarantee the security of its citizens against all threats, including internal threats like this.

 

I entirely agree that men and boys are in dire need of more support systems and help, because unfortunately we are far more prone to violent outbursts - all the more reason to put up barriers between us and access to the means to amplify those outbursts to a scale they should never, ever, reach. I do not see why we cannot come at the problem from multiple angles. It's not one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NRA: "Keeping guns makes you safe." Most of the following 101 countries have stricter gun control laws than the United States and have lower murder rates (three have the same as the U.S.) according to UNDOC:

 

Monaco 0.0, Palau 0.0, Hong Kong 0.2, Japan 0.3, Singapore 0.3, Iceland 0.3, French Polynesia 0.4, Brunei 0.5, Bahrain 0.6, Norway 0.6, Austria 0.6, Guam 0.6, Macau 0.7, Oman 0.7, Slovenia 0.7, Switzerland 0.7, United Arab Emirates 0.8, Spain 0.8, Germany 0.8, Qatar 0.9, Denmark 0.9, Italy 0.9, New Zealand 0.9, Vanuatu 0.9, Federated States of Micronesia 0.9, China 1.0, Bhutan 1.0, Saudi Arabia 1.0, Sweden 1.0, Malta 1.0, Australia 1.0, Tonga 1.0, Tunisia 1.1, Poland 1.1, France 1.1, Netherlands 1.1, Samoa 1.1, Egypt 1.2, Ireland 1.2, United Kingdom 1.2, Portugal 1.2, Serbia 1.2, Hungary 1.3, Andorra 1.3, Morocco 1.4, Armenia 1.4, Croatia 1.4, Somalia 1.5, Algeria 1.5, Slovakia 1.5, Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.5, Greece 1.5, Canada 1.6, Vietnam 1.6, Maldives 1.6, Cyprus 1.7, Czech Republic 1.7, Belgium 1.7, Jordan 1.8, São Tomé and Príncipe 1.9, Macedonia 1.9, Iraq 2.0, Bulgaria 2.0, Romania 2.0, Tajikistan 2.1, Israel 2.1, Azerbaijan 2.2, Kuwait 2.2, Lebanon 2.2, Finland 2.2, Malaysia 2.3, Syria 2.3, Afghanistan 2.4, Mauritius 2.5, Luxembourg 2.5, South Korea 2.6, Bangladesh 2.7, Nepal 2.8, Liechtenstein 2.8, Fiji 2.8, Libya 2.9, Iran 3.0, Uzbekistan 3.1, Latvia 3.1, Chile 3.2, Taiwan 3.2, Turkey 3.3, Djibouti 3.4, Argentina 3.4, Cambodia 3.4, India 3.4, Montenegro 3.5, Sri Lanka 3.6, Solomon Islands 3.7, Niger 3.8, Albania 4.0, Palestine 4.1, Martinique 4.2, Turkmenistan 4.2, Yemen 4.2, United States 4.2....

 

God Bless America.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somewhat agree with E Rocc in this sense: there are so many guns out there that trying to start tight control now will probably cause more problems than it fixes. At least in the short and medium term.

 

Unfortunately, we really missed the boat on sensible weapons policy in this country. The Second Amendment, as many have noted, was made for a time when firepower and precision were pretty weak. Technology has crept and now we have the right to bear some pretty insane arms. If we were able to wield the same firepower as the military, which I believe was the original intent of the Second Amendment, we would literally have citizens harboring A-bombs, among other weapons bans of which are completely uncontroversial. (Why Second Amendment nuts aren't arguing for the right to these weapons, I'm not quite sure. IMO they'd have a better Constitutional case than they do for specific types of guns.)

 

Anyway, other countries have been able to put a cap on the problem we have because they started much earlier, before technology got out of control. They simply don't have a huge stockpile of crazy-powerful rifles and whatnot within their borders. We would still have those guns here, even if they were banned. I don't know what the shelflife of a gun is, but I'm pretty sure if production ceased today, 100 years from now a significant number of these weapons would still be around. And for obvious reasons you can't just go around collecting them.

 

I guess the most reasonable possibility for reducing the number of these things out there is a massive buyback program (certain to be expensive, though the metal is probably worth something and the military could maybe have a steady supply of guns for a while). You'd have to offer a lot of money to get the nuts to consider letting go of their prized possessions which they hate the idea of the government taking. Couple this with ammunition buyback and restrictions on ammunition manufacturing and purchasing.

 

Create big enough incentives for people to disarm, and you might make a dent. But it's likely to be very, very expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking outside of the box.What if there was a transaction fee onall gun sales that was proportional or more likely logarithmic based fee on the "killing rate/power" of the unit? Obviously the gun show loophole would need to be closed. Low power revolvers and single shot hunting rifles would have a fee that is a few dollars while military style assault rifles would have a fee several times the current value of the gun. Want a 30 round clip for your 9mm semi, be prepared to pay. Anybody could still own any firearm that they wanted. Just the economics of it would change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is so terrible.  Reading it has turned me into an emotional blubbery mess.  I havent cried so much since my brothers wedding, but thats a whole 'nother story.

 

My heart goes out to those families and the brave teachers and administrators who died trying to protect the students.

 

I somewhat agree with E Rocc in this sense: there are so many guns out there that trying to start tight control now will probably cause more problems than it fixes. At least in the short and medium term.

 

Unfortunately, we really missed the boat on sensible weapons policy in this country. The Second Amendment, as many have noted, was made for a time when firepower and precision were pretty weak. Technology has crept and now we have the right to bear some pretty insane arms. If we were able to wield the same firepower as the military, which I believe was the original intent of the Second Amendment, we would literally have citizens harboring A-bombs, among other weapons bans of which are completely uncontroversial. (Why Second Amendment nuts aren't arguing for the right to these weapons, I'm not quite sure. IMO they'd have a better Constitutional case than they do for specific types of guns.)

 

Anyway, other countries have been able to put a cap on the problem we have because they started much earlier, before technology got out of control. They simply don't have a huge stockpile of crazy-powerful rifles and whatnot within their borders. We would still have those guns here, even if they were banned. I don't know what the shelflife of a gun is, but I'm pretty sure if production ceased today, 100 years from now a significant number of these weapons would still be around. And for obvious reasons you can't just go around collecting them.

 

I guess the most reasonable possibility for reducing the number of these things out there is a massive buyback program (certain to be expensive, though the metal is probably worth something and the military could maybe have a steady supply of guns for a while). You'd have to offer a lot of money to get the nuts to consider letting go of their prized possessions which they hate the idea of the government taking. Couple this with ammunition buyback and restrictions on ammunition manufacturing and purchasing.

 

Create big enough incentives for people to disarm, and you might make a dent. But it's likely to be very, very expensive.

Expensive?  You cannot put a price on a humans life.  To understand what I mean by this, place your children, nephews/nieces, God children, neighbors children, etc at this school.

 

I bet the saving of human lives will outweigh the price of any gun/ammo exchange.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a certain point, pragmatism rules the day. Over 100 Americans die everyday in car accidents. We could reduce those numbers to zero if we were willing to spend enough money and sacrifice enough speed of getting from A to B. Certainly we are not doing enough, but at a certain point you start getting diminishing returns and people are no longer willing to pay the price or make the sacrifice. What it amounts to is that everyone implicitly agrees that a number of deaths are acceptable.

 

The court system has formulas to value people's lives. For example, if a company is found to be at fault for the death of an individual, they will have to pay more or less money to the person's dependents based upon the wages the individual would be expected to earn. It's cruel, but it is the system set up for handling a complicated problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thinking outside of the box.What if there was a transaction fee onall gun sales that was proportional or more likely logarithmic based fee on the "killing rate/power" of the unit? Obviously the gun show loophole would need to be closed. Low power revolvers and single shot hunting rifles would have a fee that is a few dollars while military style assault rifles would have a fee several times the current value of the gun. Want a 30 round clip for your 9mm semi, be prepared to pay. Anybody could still own any firearm that they wanted. Just the economics of it would change.

 

I could quibble with some of your specifics (you're drawing a logarithmic-scale difference between a revolver and a 9mm semi, when actually a great many handguns just one step up from a revolver are semiautomatic and use 9mm bullets, including a fair number of favorites among the law enforcement community), but I get the concept of your proposal.  I'm not sure it would do any good, though.  First, as noted upthread, there are still millions of guns available out there on the secondary market.  Not all of those transactions could be effectively regulated, and a punitive sales tax/transaction fee on such purchases would only accelerate the expansion of the existing black arms market.  Second, my understanding is that a number of shooters actually had money to spare (the Batman shooter in Colorado actually had full body armor), and more importantly, were probably willing to liquidate every asset they had and spend every dime of credit they could get loading up (since they didn't intend to be living after their rampage), whereas normal people who still have something to live for are going to be more hesitant to spend ridiculous amounts on arms.  They have other priorities and obligations.

 

I admit that I am very out-of-mainstream on this, but the mainstream ideas I see always appear to be overemotional reactions to immediate, high-visibility events, and I just can't see them working given human nature, the existing physical environment (guns in circulation), and the existing legal environment, which I also don't favor changing.  I go in the other direction.  I favor near-universal firearms ownership among the mentally sound adult population and training in the same at state expense, under the Militia Clause and state and federal enabling legislation.  I go back and forth on the issue of universal organized militia (National Guard) membership among the 18-45 population (I don't mind the "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" model; my largest issue with it is the susceptibility of the National Guard to be mobilized and used basically as regular Army, even for foreign deployments, which I oppose even now and would oppose even more if we instituted a universal-service model).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people do not want to be gun owners. Too many to make the universal ownership model work. (Which is highly debatable that it would "work", anyway, whatever "work" really means in this case -- I think banning guns has a clearer end goal.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people do not want to be gun owners. Too many to make the universal ownership model work. (Which is highly debatable that it would "work", anyway, whatever "work" really means in this case -- I think banning guns has a clearer end goal.)

 

A lot of people don't want to be disarmed, either.  Too many to make the banning guns model work.  (Which is highly debatable that it would "work" anyway, assuming that the pretty clear end goal in both cases is a country safer against foreign and domestic enemies.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, which I went into some detail on that above. We already have a ton of guns. Other, less violent countries started bans prior to the onset of modern weapon technology. It's not such a simple fix here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we even waisting time talking about banning guns?  NOBODY is proposing a BAN on guns.  I hate it when debates in this country force their way to the extremes.  Just because a teacher can't lead the entire classroom in a prayer, doesn't mean you can't pray in school.  Just because City Hall should not have a nativity scene, does not mean celebrating christmas is illegal.  Just because you support the right of woman to choose what to do with her body, doesn't mean you want to slaughter babies.

 

I favor near-universal firearms ownership among the mentally sound adult population and training in the same at state expense, under the Militia Clause and state and federal enabling legislation.  I go back and forth on the issue of universal organized militia (National Guard) membership among the 18-45 population (I don't mind the "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" model; my largest issue with it is the susceptibility of the National Guard to be mobilized and used basically as regular Army, even for foreign deployments, which I oppose even now and would oppose even more if we instituted a universal-service model).

 

Not very libertarian of you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy had an assualt rifle because his MOTHER bought it. Limiting access via screening methods likely wouldn't have stopped this. I don't know why it's so irrational to just outright ban the production and use of these types of weapons outright (with the exception of military purposes, obviously....gotta kill the evil doers with something...).

 

Yes yes, I know, some are already out there. But that doesn't mean we have to double down on them. Everyone who wants a gun, can and should be able to buy one (pistol, rifle, shotgun, whatever). You should not be able to buy something that can cause this much devastation. There is absolutely no need for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I favor near-universal firearms ownership among the mentally sound adult population and training in the same at state expense, under the Militia Clause and state and federal enabling legislation.  I go back and forth on the issue of universal organized militia (National Guard) membership among the 18-45 population (I don't mind the "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" model; my largest issue with it is the susceptibility of the National Guard to be mobilized and used basically as regular Army, even for foreign deployments, which I oppose even now and would oppose even more if we instituted a universal-service model).

 

Not very libertarian of you

 

I'm aware, which is one reason I'm always a little uneasy on the issue.  But then again, I'm also not exactly a purist when it comes to libertarianism (and in fact, some of the people I have the most bitter debates with are the diehard Ron Paul/Ayn Rand/Mises worshipers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At a certain point, pragmatism rules the day. Over 100 Americans die everyday in car accidents. We could reduce those numbers to zero if we were willing to spend enough money and sacrifice enough speed of getting from A to B. Certainly we are not doing enough, but at a certain point you start getting diminishing returns and people are no longer willing to pay the price or make the sacrifice. What it amounts to is that everyone implicitly agrees that a number of deaths are acceptable.

 

The court system has formulas to value people's lives. For example, if a company is found to be at fault for the death of an individual, they will have to pay more or less money to the person's dependents based upon the wages the individual would be expected to earn. It's cruel, but it is the system set up for handling a complicated problem.

 

Sweetie, I'm aware of all this.  But my family is worth more to me than a monetary value.  I cannot put a price on a life.  You may have a judicial value but it will never equate to an emotional value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After there's a new assault weapons ban, create a fixed amount income tax credit for anyone who turns in an assault weapon. And make the tax credit large enough ($500? $1,000?) to entice people to turn in any firearm (not just assault weapons) so that can be destroyed.

 

I just think guns are silly. They are for scared people with way too much testosterone.


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After there's a new assault weapons ban, create a fixed amount income tax credit for anyone who turns in an assault weapon. And make the tax credit large enough ($500? $1,000?) to entice people to turn in any firearm (not just assault weapons) so that can be destroyed.

 

I just think guns are silly. They are for scared people with way too much testosterone.

 

Bad combination, huh?  :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think guns are silly. They are for scared people with way too much testosterone.

 

It's very easy to try and paint all gun enthusiasts as fringe lunatics but I think we all know that's not the case.

 

You should come out to the gun range sometime, you won't find a group of nicer, law abiding, respectful people.  I belong to SCSA, would be happy to show you around.  We're always welcoming new members.  Most of the guys who shoot regularly are ex-military who are in their 50's and simply enjoy the comraderie and keeping their skills up for periodic competitions.  It's a very expensive hobby and there are very few places where one can participate in such a hobby. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I don’t own a gun but I’ve been to gun ranges quite a few times, either with my dad’s cheap, old hunting rifle, or just rented one at the range.  I don’t think I’m scared or full of testosterone, guns are just an enjoyable pastime I’ve participated in a few times.

 

I think when events like the recent shooting happen, people want there to be some easy excuse or something easy to blame.  They don’t feel as if being able to just blame one person, who offed themselves already, is enough, because of how harsh their crime was.  It lets people recover from the tragedy because they can blame everyone who has a gun, the NRA, republicans, etc. rather than just the one person (or in this case, two, as I think the mother is also partly at fault) who is actually responsible.  It’s tough to grasp the fact that some mentally unstable, loser kid is capable of destroying so many lives, so people look to blame the tools rather than the wielder. Take away the gun, and people would just get more creative in their killings; highjack a schoolbus, burn down a school, drive through a crowd, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have no problem with a system that let's you keep your AR33 assault rifle with extendable clip and fingerprint resistance finish at a well secured gun range so you can go there and shoot until your heart's content.

 

^I'm not going to bite on your strawman arguments, but if you take away the gun from Adam Lanza, 20 kids are still alive.  I would bet the farm on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only jumped in this thread to respond to KJP's kneejerk stereotype about gun owners, but now that I'm in it, here's a few facts to consider in the rush to change gun laws in America

 

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

 

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

 

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

 

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.

 

For the record, it's my opinion that assault rifles or any automatic weapon should be banned & against the law to own.  Hunting, home protection, & target shooting all have nothing to do with these weapons.  They are banned at most reputable gun clubs because the rapid fire causes the shooter to lose control and the muzzle lifts & the shooter overshoots their target

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to point out the high point of mass killings in 1929 had a lot more to do with the mob wars associated with prohibition than mentally unstable people killing to get famous on their way out.

 

I can't wrap my head on these random massacres.

 

The earliest shooting that I remember like this was the one at McDonalds in the 80's. Truly random mass shooting seemed to be pretty rare. This latest one and the Aurora killings are particularly disturbing because they seem to be mass killing for the sake of mass killing.  Even workplace shooting I can sort of  see the warped logic.

 

At least in the Rep Gifford shooting he was at least obsessed with her, sort of the Lennon-chapman killing model. Everybody else was just collateral damage or in cohorts with her.

 

Sorry for getting so far of topic.

 

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I am surprised video games haven't been brought up very much yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...