Recommended Posts
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteIf a people of their mentality was still running the country today, I doubt it would have happened to begin with
And I thought no solution has a 100% succes rate...
I figured a rhetorical question could use a rhetorical answer
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Fast 0
QuoteWhile it may be a good idea to put better locks on the doors, I still a shooter would just show up before school opens or when it ends, and hundreds of students are milling about in front of or coming out of the doors. In fact they're packed so close together he'd probably have more casualties than bullets fired. Don't think that locking doors is the whole answer. Still need someone to stop him when he starts up.
I'm glad that this concept showed up here.
The problem that I have with this round of gun control argument is that it doesn't address the real problem. Our society is fundamentally flawed. We have gotten to a point where people are with more frequency deciding that these types of things are the solution.
The problem is with what's important to our society. Success is measured by fame and fortune. There is very little emphasis left in society for choosing to do what is honorable and moral. People frequently choose the less "right" action because it will garner more money or more notoriety.
I personally feel that we need to emphasis consequences for actions. Children grow up now with so much one sided positive reinforcement that they never learn that life has downsides. When presented with this situation later in life they don't know how to deal with it. They act in a manner that will garner them what they want without care for others or any fear of consequences.
We have become dependent on reactionary laws that are meant to punish people who don't do what's "right" but we aren't doing a good job teaching people ahead of time what that really is. In any game, there should be a winner and a loser and that's ok. We dont' do a great job teaching that concept anymore.
I read an article some time ago when airport security was all the rage in the media. It was talking about the fact that at most major airports in the US you can be almost as effective of a terrorist by bombing the line to get through security. (Running kids over outside the school with a car). Taking guns out of someone's hand won't stop them from doing crazy stuff. It won't stop serial killers. It won't stop criminals.
That to me is the problem with additional gun control laws. It's a band-aid on a much greater problem that is getting worse and worse. How many kid's committed suicide this year because they were bullied? This all comes down to people not being taught to take personal responsibility for their actions and understanding true consequences.
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka
rushmc 18
That context is very clear
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
riggerrob 562
QuoteAutomatic weapons may be hard to get - but as far as I understand it semi-automatic weapons can still have really large capacities but just require pulling the trigger in between shots.
I'm not super familiar with these - but could a shooter still not get several rounds a second off? I'm not sure but I would think that outside of a war zone that a semi-automatic could cause [ALMOST] as much damage as an automatic. Magazine capacity seems more important
........................................................................................
Good points.
Your thoughts pararllel Canadian gun laws, where it is easy to buy guns with magazines that hold less than ten bullets., however, most larger magazines are "restricted" or "prohibited" and all belt-fed (fully-automatic) machine-guns are definitely "prohibited" for civilians.
Quote
As a side note, and this is really a rhetorical question, but I really wonder what the response of the founding fathers would have been to Newtown, CT.
If a people of their mentality was still running the country today, I doubt it would have happened to begin with
Before 1975 we just threw alleged crazies in institutions and left them there forever. Gitmos for citizens accused of mental illness.
Thank goodness the SCOTUS found in 1975 that the mentally ill are people and have rights, too.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,471
This is an on topic discussion, and the topic is how to allow sane people to own guns while keeping guns out of the hands of the insane. Only posts on that topic are allowed. The following will be deleted:
-The usual attacks on Kallend (unless they specifically discuss something about the above topic)
-The usual attacks on Obama
-Discussions about meth
-"what the problem really is"
-"why do you want to ban guns?"
And all the other traditional devolutions of such arguments. People who post these things multiple times will be banned for a day to keep the discussion from devolving.
bigbearfng 16
Of course our idiot knee jerk politicians wouldn't be able to think of any common sense ideas.
One other "food for thought" clarified. (And this is applicable to several crazies shooting incidents)
When you fill out the form to purchase a firearm it is basically on your honor when asked if you're addicted to drugs or have a mental health history.
If a person is taken 5150 by LEO then it is in the checkable system along with criminal history.
(5150 is CA H&S code for a 72 hr psych hold.)
However a 5150 by mental health or an MD is not checkable at all.
Thank HIPAA for this......
So several of the recent nutters would never have been able to buy those weapons if a real background check had been able to be performed.
Now as to a central record of "nutters" so to speak ever becoming a possibility in our current politically correct privacy advocates society...........
rhaig 0
Rob
Skyrad 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteYour ideas sound reasonable to me - but as someone pointed out we do want to allow hunting.
Its interesting to note that outside of the USA in first world countries that allow firearm ownership its for the purpose of either hunting or target shooting not self defence. Protection of society is seen as the job of the police. Even before the handgun ban in the UK you couldn't carry or own for self defence.
Switzerland comes to mind as being directly against that.
Not at all. In Switerland men are armed because they are in the millitary reserve and part of the Army it is the Army's job to defend the nation. Those assault rifles are their not for self defence but for defence of the nation, there is a very big difference.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Skyrad 0
QuoteI believe that the problem stems from the wording of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. There is some discussion as to whether it has one or three commas, but here is the version in the Library of Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I think it is clear that the Founding Fathers intended that "the people" would, mostly, be organized into Militias. These would be local organizations--groups of people who would know each other. Perhaps we need to re-think the Second amendment or require that gun owners belong to them. That would help prevent mentally unstable persons from getting guns. Nothing, of course, could prevent gun violence entirely.
This is the US version of saying well it says this is how we must live in the Koran/Torah/Bible without taking in to account that it was written hundreds of years ago. Society changes
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
And I thought no solution has a 100% succes rate...
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites