Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ColDayMan

Gun Rights

Recommended Posts

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

^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.


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

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.


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

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

More people need to read and share what Marilyn Mansion wrote and believed about Columbine. I came to respect him for it.


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^This is a good clip from Bowling for Columbine that describes the media's attack on video games and music as a cause for irrational human behavior. I think Manson does make a good point here.

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. 

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. 

 

"An armed society is a polite society" - Robert Anson Heinlein.

 

Every proposed "solution" I have heard has severe drawbacks at best, and could lead to much dangerous situations.

 

A post above nailed it, while being otherwise wrong:  These killers want to become famous.

 

The media should never mention their names or discuss their motivations.

 

Unfortunately, that won't happen universally as it would run quite afoul of the First Amendment to make it so.

 

Gun owners, for the most part, are indeed "nice, respectful people".  Unless they think you are trying to take away a very essential right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

At the moment I'm not willing to put in the time to parse the word 'common' in association with mass shootings.

 

If you add in the Newtons shooting from last week it looks like 5 of the ten worst in the US  have happened since 2007 and that seems pretty significant in relation to this discussion

 

http://technorati.com/politics/article/newton-tragedy-and-10-deadliest-mass/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been to a gun range -- in the Ukraine. A former soldier in the Russian Army taught me how to fire an AK-47. My aim at about 100 feet was pretty good despite my shaky hands. The AK was fixed for semi-auto only, so I could only fire single shot. So I was pretty happy that I hit 75% of the the targets -- all vodka bottles. It was actually interesting.

 

And I couldn't care if I ever do it again. In fact, after the increasing number of massacres in this country, I would prefer that nobody ever do it again if it means a life can be saved. You all better be sure I don't get elected dictator someday because I will seize all your guns, melt them down and make plow shares out of them. For those of you feeling patriotic, I advise you not to tell my jack-booted thugs "out of my cold dead hands"... All joking aside, that's how incredibly angry I am about things right now.

 

A post above nailed it, while being otherwise wrong:  These killers want to become famous.

 

The media should never mention their names or discuss their motivations.

 

Agree 100%. When I heard a CNN reporter say the killers name, I literally yelled at the TV and shut it off. Then I went back to writing my dictatorial manifesto.....


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Fine. Make them be more creative. I'll put my money on heavily armed law enforcement vs. harder-to-be armed criminals with 'creative' killing solutions. There ARE creative mass murderers, but there are fewer of them. The idea that all, or even a significant number of gun killers would suddenly morph into geniuses and create new ways to murder...where is the data to support this argument? Why does it even make intuitive sense to you? Guns make killing easier. That's the problem. A gun control argument is not a 'we have to stop anything that kills people' argument, it's an argument that certain things make it SO EASY to commit mass murder (note: mass murder, not just murder) that they deserve special, very restrictive regulation. If you can show me other things in that category, I'll happily ban them as well.

 

I've seen a few people on Facebook make the simplistic analogy that "Oh, if we ban guns, we have to ban cars, because people die in accidents." I have a small aneurysm every time someone makes one of these analogies, because, guess what - cars are more regulated than firearms! And through consistent and careful regulation, vehicular deaths have steadily fallen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I couldn't care if I ever do it again. In fact, after the increasing number of massacres in this country, I would prefer that nobody ever do it again if it means a life can be saved. You all better be sure I don't get elected dictator someday because I will seize all your guns, melt them down and make plow shares out of them. For those of you feeling patriotic, I advise you not to tell my jack-booted thugs "out of my cold dead hands"... All joking aside, that's how incredibly angry I am about things right now.

 

Damn, that’s the last thing anyone wants.  Especially the powers that be that have a clue, I’m becoming increasingly convinced.

 

You’d have the BATFE hot dogs that the cops and even some FBI agents call “F Troop”.  Maybe some of the TSA guys that are too hyper to pat down old ladies and little kids at airports.  The kinds of guys that do great on no-knock raids on what turns out to be the wrong address but need to be bailed out by the grownups at Idaho cabins or rural Texas religious nuthouses. 

 

Sure, they’d take out some of the tinfoil brigade.  But eventually, you’d be sending

them up against the likes of the guys that got bin Laden.

 

This would end up being a lot like sending one of the 82 bridge bombers against Chuck Norris.  Conceptually appealing, but ugly very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A post above nailed it, while being otherwise wrong:  These killers want to become famous.

 

The media should never mention their names or discuss their motivations.

 

Agree 100%. When I heard a CNN reporter say the killers name, I literally yelled at the TV and shut it off. Then I went back to writing my dictatorial manifesto.....

 

Hell, mentioning his name is one thing.  Going through every detail of his life like Tiger Beat magazine profiling Justin Beiber is another level of magnitude.  He just became the poster boy for kids who want to really scare their parents, and he knew it before he did this.  Otherwise, he just stays in his basement, writes bad poetry, and may not pull the trigger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...