- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 140
I was being facetious about his title, not sure of his credentials
United States & Gun Control discussion.
- Thread starter Diamondback 2/2
- Start date
Understood. There are just so many experts out there now-a-days.
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,588
I concur. Two issues have been in play for quite a bit of time, they include: responsible ownership, and dealing with those who are likely to act dangerously with firearms.
I believe that owners of firearms should secure them properly. That means the weapon is on your person, or locked in a firearms safe. The safe should be bolted to the dwelling. I'm not sure if this would have stopped the latest event in CN., but there might have been less to copy. Dealing with those who should not have firearms, is harder.
Background checks with a weapons could be better. Any question about mental disease/defect/instability should be searched for. If evidence of such is found, a higher level of investigation should be taken, and a denial of purchase if necessary. This will take longer to do, and a week's wait for approval could result. Is this something that could/should be supported? Second part is about those who would be denied a purchase.
Many years ago, large state supported mental health hospitals. Patients were cared for for years, with close followup upon discharge. Budget constraints have moved a considerable number of these former patients out into the community, with overworked outpatient clinic followup. These formerly hospitalized patients are in our community, and do well until something happens. They stop taking meds, break a law, scare someone, hurt someone, or kill someone. In any case, they wind up in jail for what they have done, not a care facility. In short, we now criminalize the mentally ill; that is the new standard for care of the mentally ill, in some cases. If the homes these mentally ill people are living in have firearms, are the firearms really secured? If not, the risk is huge; we have seen the results in some cases. It is the interface of mentally ill/ impared/ undertreated individual, with firearms that is the dangerous place. It is also the most expensive, and least likely part that will be addressed.
I think the solution is there, as mentioned above. Is that the road that we will go down? Probably not. Like Free pointed out, emotion will carry the issue into the political arena. The government will be supported to act in a "decisive" way, in a way that demands fast sure solution. It will not include much thought, it will happen quickly, and punished harshly. Smallarms do make is really easy to kill a lot of people in a short period of time. Solution, take them away. They are already "against the law" in some cases, so a stronger law will be expected to solve the problem; take all the guns away. It is just the wrong thing to do. We will continue to treat the mentally ill with a term in jail/prison. People will still scare, hurt, kill people; they will just find another way. A new map will be drawn for others to follow; nothing will really change, in the end.
That's my take; off the soapbox back to my little hole here in The Valley.
RF 1
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2012
- Messages
- 140
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/opinion/zuckerman-connecticut-shootings/index.html
Reading some of these comments I'm afraid it's already here. Not that it's a surprise that people make ignorant statements but these are above and beyond what I usually hear from the anti-gun crowd. It's coming down the pipes, things will get interesting.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
I believe that people should be able to own handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, assault rifles, sniper rifles, light machine guns... or whatever else. However, to say that these rights shouldn't come with any responsibilities (safekeeping), duties (immediately reporting missing weapons) or conditions (limiting/excluding these rights from the severely deranged or criminals) just seems crazy to me.
This is a similar reasoning to that which causes people to fly planes into buildings. The USC is truly great, but one's interpretation of a single text is hardly the only source of information which one should use to base an entire judgement. Regardless, the USC doesn't say that you should have an unrestricted right to bear arms. Adding conditions to certain rights does not defeat/infringe on those rights. Nearly all of our rights in Western countries are restricted, and for good reason, because there are always dicks out there who'd like to abuse them to the detriment of others. Deciding what restrictions are acceptable is down to us.
Do you really not see the issue with all people, even those with serious mental health issues or major criminal records (the bulk of these mass murderers), being able to own and carry lethal weapons? Please tell me you believe in certain limitations.
If we decided that it was a good idea to get people to pass a course before they could drive a car, then it's probably a good idea to get them to obtain a license (e.g., similar to a CCW) before they can own, carry and use something which could potentially be far more dangerous than a car. Maybe then people would learn about a lot of neglected subjects, such as how to secure your weapon so your psychopath son doesn't steal it and go on a rampage at your local school? I'm sure it'd cut down on a lot of accidental deaths and injuries too.
I'm against most gun restrictions, which are just plain dumb (e.g., the AWB), but I do advocate laws that make gun ownership a real, personal responsibility. Being able to safely operate a weapon is one of the biggest and most basic of all military duties, for which everyone must pass training, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same in the civilian world, since it works so well for us.
And some people may view driving licenses as measures to limit lawful citizens from being able to move about freely, but maybe they don't see that they're just there to make sure we exercise that right responsibly?
Maybe because his mother was too irresponsible to exercise safe storage of firearms? A lot of stupid shit like this happens because:
A) Guns are legally or illegally sold to people who have no social responsibility of owning them (i.e., the mentally disturbed, criminals, etc). <- This can be limited with regulations similar to those which decide who is responsible enough to drive a car or not.
B) Guns are stolen by those with malicious intent. <- This can't be limited unless people stop being idiots when it comes to how they store their weapons. So, maybe introduce gun laws which actually make sense? Instead of stupid crap like the Assault Weapons Ban, politicians should try introducing something which would make people a lot more responsible for keeping their weapons secure.
This is just too unrealistic. Teachers aren't exactly stereotypical advocates of gun ownership... let alone people who would want to carry guns around children. It also adds to possibilities of guns being stolen as soon as someone, like a teacher, (inevitably) gets lazy at some point. The only solution is to lock-down entry/exit points at schools and focus security on those. Having a SWAT team at every hallway isn't a solution. Let schools be schools, not military bases. It's already sad enough that, in a first world country, school entrances need to be locked down with armed security.
This is a similar reasoning to that which causes people to fly planes into buildings. The USC is truly great, but one's interpretation of a single text is hardly the only source of information which one should use to base an entire judgement. Regardless, the USC doesn't say that you should have an unrestricted right to bear arms. Adding conditions to certain rights does not defeat/infringe on those rights. Nearly all of our rights in Western countries are restricted, and for good reason, because there are always dicks out there who'd like to abuse them to the detriment of others. Deciding what restrictions are acceptable is down to us.
Do you really not see the issue with all people, even those with serious mental health issues or major criminal records (the bulk of these mass murderers), being able to own and carry lethal weapons? Please tell me you believe in certain limitations.
If we decided that it was a good idea to get people to pass a course before they could drive a car, then it's probably a good idea to get them to obtain a license (e.g., similar to a CCW) before they can own, carry and use something which could potentially be far more dangerous than a car. Maybe then people would learn about a lot of neglected subjects, such as how to secure your weapon so your psychopath son doesn't steal it and go on a rampage at your local school? I'm sure it'd cut down on a lot of accidental deaths and injuries too.
I'm against most gun restrictions, which are just plain dumb (e.g., the AWB), but I do advocate laws that make gun ownership a real, personal responsibility. Being able to safely operate a weapon is one of the biggest and most basic of all military duties, for which everyone must pass training, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same in the civilian world, since it works so well for us.
And some people may view driving licenses as measures to limit lawful citizens from being able to move about freely, but maybe they don't see that they're just there to make sure we exercise that right responsibly?
Maybe because his mother was too irresponsible to exercise safe storage of firearms? A lot of stupid shit like this happens because:
A) Guns are legally or illegally sold to people who have no social responsibility of owning them (i.e., the mentally disturbed, criminals, etc). <- This can be limited with regulations similar to those which decide who is responsible enough to drive a car or not.
B) Guns are stolen by those with malicious intent. <- This can't be limited unless people stop being idiots when it comes to how they store their weapons. So, maybe introduce gun laws which actually make sense? Instead of stupid crap like the Assault Weapons Ban, politicians should try introducing something which would make people a lot more responsible for keeping their weapons secure.
This is just too unrealistic. Teachers aren't exactly stereotypical advocates of gun ownership... let alone people who would want to carry guns around children. It also adds to possibilities of guns being stolen as soon as someone, like a teacher, (inevitably) gets lazy at some point. The only solution is to lock-down entry/exit points at schools and focus security on those. Having a SWAT team at every hallway isn't a solution. Let schools be schools, not military bases. It's already sad enough that, in a first world country, school entrances need to be locked down with armed security.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
I hope so too. You wouldn't want a knee-jerk reaction like the Dunblane massacre created in the UK.
Like I said, banning firearms is stupid... but, IMO, people do need to be made more responsible for their ownership, if they want to have that right.
Yeah, that was me. I'm happy to cop to it. My point was that as amazing a document the Constitution is, it was written at a time when the Founding Brothers could never imagine what the future would look like. It'd be pretty hard to kill 26 people with a musket.
As I said, I know my opinion isn't gonna be a popular one around here and I'm okay with that.
Arrow 4 - you seem to focus almost exclusively on the lack of religion in our society. IMHO, this horror had everything to do with mental illness. Why or how could someone this sick and damaged not get the help he needed? His mother had to have know he had some serious issues - why didn't she secure her legally obtained weapons so he (or anyone else for that matter) didn't have access to them?
Which is fine, but weapons technology was progressing and had progressed during the founding fathers lifetime... therefore your argument is based on fallacy and big appleism, not fact nor even common sense.
Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers wanted us using muskets in perpetuity would also have to explain if they think we should be using quill pens and India ink in tiny glass vials by candlelight as well.
The purpose of arming a populace, as the Founding Father's writing is utterly replete with references to, is to serve as a final guarantor of liberty if- and when- a tyrannical government began exceeding it's boundaries. When a people finally have no recourse and feel they are living in tyranny, they will be able to dissolve the standing government and in it's place erect a new one. Without weapons- contemporary weapons- such a scenario would end in any revolution being crushed. No Founding Father would have wanted to strip away the power to rise against tyranny for future generations.
We have already rounded the bend. Our nation has been fundamentally transformed, and I do not believe we will soon return to the ways of the past. The inner cities and ghettos and large cities, combined with millions of new un-assimilated immigrants have with the power of their numbers changed the fabric of America without regard for the values held by the Founding Fathers. A huge percentage of Americans no longer even know what this country is about, much less it's origins, or the history of revolution that brought us here.
No offense, Ex3, but ask the average New Yorker who the Founding Fathers were. You'll burn through a hundred passerby's before you find one who can even name one. But they can tell you when the subways run, how to hail a taxi and where to find a good slice of pizza. This country, and in particular the massive population centers are good at pumping out millions of high schoolers into the system who can't even read, let alone identify with what this country stands for, or it's incredible history. The same is true of every large city in America, particularly in the Northeast and California. Go to small towns, and you will still find ignorance, but there will still be a reverence for the basic liberties in the Constitution.
We have already rounded the bend. The fabric of America has changed and they WILL support gun control. It's a matter of time.
I'm not typing it again. LOL
http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threa...lation-happening-now.15916/page-2#post-245302
http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threa...lation-happening-now.15916/page-2#post-245302
Not sure what your point is....you think New Yorkers are dumb? Because they aren't.
Not for nothing, but I think that fact that a mass shooting like they one yesterday or in Columbine has never happened in NYC says the more strict control of guns in the city is working. Notice I didn't say outlawing of guns, just stricter control.
It's also hard to reach the minds of a billion people with a speech given on a soapbox.
I know we're going to disagree on this, but everytime I hear of a proposed law/regulation/etc for firearms, I ask myself "would this make sense if we replaced the word "gun" with "speech". For every restriction on an Americans right to keep & bear arms, why aren't the same strictures placed on freedom of speech? Need a permit to own a gun? Why not a permit to have a web site? Is not the pen mightier than the sword?
Also harder to kill someone with a pen. ;) xx
Rapid I don’t have the time right now to respond to your whole post, but I will later. Just a quick few tid-bits:
1. The United States Constitution is the law of the land for the federal government. It restricts the government from restricting rights of the people. Just because the federal government has been adding restrictive laws, doesn’t make them legal or right. The states however, have the power to make laws that do restrict things, such as requiring a driver’s license or CCW training, ect. However, the state is also bound by the constitution as well. Again just because the governments have been trampling all over the people’s rights, doesn’t make it legal.
2. I agree with gun-owner responsibility laws (i.e. keep them locked up if they are not on your person, ect). However, it would only be enforceable as reactive law. Meaning that something would have to go wrong for someone to be punished, same goes for more restriction on being able to buy a gun, thus continuing the cycle of laws being made that do not fix the actual problem.
3. Teachers being armed should be up to the teacher, and I do believe that they should be requirements in training before being allowed to carry in a classroom. However, I think it is absolutely idiotic to not allow teachers to protect themselves along with the students they are responsible for. The only person, who is going to stop an active shooter from killing more people, is an armed person there as it happens….period. I wonder how teachers protected their students 200 years ago? How did parents protect their children 200 years ago? With a gun, no special license, no special laws, just the right person, at the right place, armed with a gun.
4. You can write all the special laws in the world, but at the very end of the day, it all boils down to, there are bad people out there, and the only way that anyone can protect themselves from them, is to have the means to do so. In this age that is still a gun, and as long as it is the arms of choice, people should not be restricted from having those means. Again, as PoliceMedic has posted, laws are reactive, they only offer a consequence to an act, and they do not stop the actual act. So making any laws, that restrict gun ownership, really will only affect those who respect the law, and that pretty much excludes the criminal and mentally ill element. What’s left? The people who need those guns to protect themselves from the criminal and mentally ill people.
More to follow…
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 1,068
I could write a whole book about how it would never go down like that, but come one, let's be real... The only realistic reason for gun ownership these days is self-preservation. And that's the only reason you need.
In case of a situation that actually warranted a mass, popular uprising... the government's protectors, i.e., the military and other security forces, would be the first to mutiny -- since these days they are comprised of its own, upstanding citizens (not foreign mercenaries who'll just follow any orders). And if they didn't, then god help the people, because Average Joe with his AR-15 and lack of training would never be able to take down such a force (which, again, won't happen because most of the military wouldn't be ready to start slaughtering its own citizens -- it's not Syria, after all).
I respect your view, but I disagree with you. Without writing a lengthy post I will just say that it is possible to envision a realistic scenario in which a future government bolstered largely by drones, armored vehicles and small security teams could suppress a revolution. Remember, we're not talking about a situation where the "right" side is so clear. This would be a simplistic rendering. In some future conflict, there will be loyalists and rebels, just as there are in most revolutionary scenarios.
D
Deleted member 2517
Guest
So because we teach evolution and not some creationist nonsense, we are going to experience mass shootings? What uter crap. It amazes me how those on the Christian right are so quick to capitalize on these tragedies as a means of furthering their message and picking on the groups they don't like. I'm the product of a divorced family- so are about half the kids in this country at this point. With that number, wouldn't you think these mass shootings would be much more frequent? No- they're not. And that's because our parents with their "alternative lifestyles" did a fine job of raising us. And of course they have to bring the abortion debate into this... I won't even touch on that as that is a whole other thread.
These types of killings have gone on for decades- just like the aforementioned school bombing that killed 45. We have a media that exposes us to these things more and more. Look around the world, and see all the "good" religion has done. If some people find solace in religion, good for them. But it is not the key to dealing with these sorts of things. Better mental health treatment and school safety is.
