RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other.

RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:23:57 AM)
Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday : "You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why. It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody. CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next. You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

SeekingTrinity -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:30:19 AM)
FRing it.. I myself do not currently own a gun, nor have I ever to this point in my life. I have handled guns, but have never brought one home or handled one outside of a gun range. So I have no dog in the gun control fight other than Im a citizen of the USA and my community has personally experienced a gun tragedy in the past week with the shooting at the mall here in Portland, OR. I sat here this evening thinking about gun control as the news played in the background about the tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary. I put the face of my daughter, who was born 2 years before the oldest of the child victims, in place of any of the children who lost their lives yesterday for doing nothing other than being children who were at school learning. So lets just say for argument sake that the government banned every single gun here in the US tomorrow. All of the guns that could be found were rounded up and melted down in a foundry somewhere. Are we as a society going to be safer? Initially we might be, but I think that we could easily be lulled into a sense of false security though. Would this in the future prevent some person from entering my daughter's school one day and executing her? I sadly am not so sure. While I realize Im going to be comparing apples to oranges here, I cant help but think about the US drug policy. Drugs have been illegal as hell for a number of years, starting with the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. We have 98 years of legislation against drugs. We're talking some hardcore laws on the books as well. Its illegal to possess, distribute, manufacture, or import narcotics here into the US and its been that way for years. We've lived through Nixon declaring a war on drugs in 1971 to Nancy Reagan encouraging us to "Just Say No" to DARE. So with all of this legislation and anti-drug policy, our drug problem should be non-existent, yes? Sadly, its the furthest thing from the reality. I believe the last statistic I saw was that a majority of people incarcerated in the US were for drug related offenses. I dont have good numbers nowadays on the percentage of drugs that are prevented from entering the US, but back in 2003 when I was receiving my B.S. in crime and justice studies, it was estimated that US agencies only prevented 10% of imported drugs from entering the US. So why my tangent about US drug policy and gun control? All of the gun banning laws in the land arent going to keep us immune from gun violence. Its not for a lack of wishing it was different on my part because Id gladly give it up in a heartbeat from the day I was born if that meant that any person who lost their life to gun violence was alive today. If they cannot stop drugs from entering the US despite our War on Drugs, I cant be foolish enough to think that guns will not find their way leaking across our borders to replace all of the ones we hypothetically melted down in our foundries. It may be a very jaded way of looking at things, but that is just the reality that I see. This is a multi-pronged problem no matter how we slice it. We have a mental health crisis in this country where people are seriously sick, but there is no money to treat them. Let us not forget the looming financial cliff where $1.2 trillion in spending cuts are set to take effect. Where do you think these cuts are going to happen? They are going to be shouldered by the very people who can least afford to shoulder the burden. We have countries with stringent gun control laws and high gun violence rates. We have countries with lax gun control laws and low gun violence rates. What makes them different compared to us? Why are our rates of gun violence so high? What the hell are we doing so wrong? I think that we should maybe spend more time looking into this and less time with sides pointing fingers at each other. I mean no disrespect to anyone on either side of the issue, but I think that this is bigger than all of us. Its going to take all of us together to figure it out. Just my humble opinion.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:31:47 AM)
quote: Your plan would put an extra expense to owning a semi automatic rifle or pistol, and you are saying your plan does not infringe or restrict any part of my rights under the second amendment. It guarentees you the right to own a gun. Does it say what guns? Is it specified? Is the legal system allowed to tell you what guns you can or cant own? I seem to recall The Federal Assault Weapons Ban, so apparently the system does have that right to decide which guns you may own. quote: I earned a purple heart on Grenada in 1983. You know what? You and everyone that stands against the rights I fought and served for got the better end of the deal, if a plan like yours is ever adopted. Me and every son of a bitch that ever wore a uniform and sacrificed for this country age gonna get screwed. And where did I ever say you could not own a gun? You are bitching about an added expense. Many things come with added expenses, sometimes well after you purchase. I remember my grandfather telling me about the first time he had to get his car inspected and how he thought that was high way robbery. How is this any different? I refuse to be drawn into your self pity wallow you have going on here. quote: But what is pissing me off is that I put on uniform and served this country voluntarily, to protect the rights of everyone to say or do anything they wanted within the law. And for that service I get people who, while not you tazzy, either want to eliminate one of my rights, restrict my rights or otherwise tell me where, when, and how I can exercise my rights under the second amendment. I see people on one side screaming... Leave my guns alone! I see people on the other side demanding guns be taken away. I discover a solution that, for many on these boards at least, would potentially work for those who were eager, at first, to ban all together. I really wish you would stop seeing this as a personal attack and realize that it IS a compromise.

Kirata -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:43:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Your plan would put an extra expense to owning a semi automatic rifle or pistol... I discover a solution... I don't see how you got to concluding that it's a "solution". K.

joether -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:50:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Since you asked, here is what I own: M1A, the semi automatic rifle that replaced the M1 Gerand, the mainstay of US forces in WW2. Caliber .308 max capacity 10 rounds Model 70 bolt action winchester, caliber 7mm magnum, capacity 5 rounds. Russian SKS rifle, semi automatic, reloaded by stripper clips. WW2 Mainstay of the russian army. simi auto. CZ 550 bolt action rifle, 308 caliber. Bushmaster .223 or 5.56 mm assault style semi automatic rifle, usually use a five round mag, have six 15 round mags. DPMS Panther 3G1 Rifle RFLR3G1, 308 Winchester/7.62 NATO, this is an assault style rifle, normally use five round mag, own six 15 round mags Glock 19 9mm semi automatic pistol Colt model 1911 45acp pistol, semi auto Smith and wesson 44 magnum revolver. 44 mag desert eagle, semi auto. 12 gauge pump shotgun Just imagine if they decided that like cars, you should have to pay insurance on each gun. And that each gun's insurance price isnt set by the goverment, but by the insurance agent? It'll be up to you whether you keep a gun or not. Because this process would be handled under the "Commerce Clause", not the "2nd Amendment". quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now under your plan I have to pay someone to store 7 of my guns. Now, you want to explain just how this is not infringement? I hate to explain the 2nd Amendment to an old dog. The 2nd Amendment's "...the right to bear arms..." has nothing to do with you or I's ownership of firearms for private use. It was to help explain an early state situation as it related to "A well regulated militia...". An that was the individual person, to whom was male, was part of the local militia and if in good standing with the community to which they belonged, could have their firearm in their dwelling. The idea was not to have a centralized armoury that could be destroyed by a suprise attack. The 2nd amendment does not handle someone's ownership of a firearm for hunting deer, sport shooting, or simply a collector of old firearms. If you wish to ignore this bit of US History, fine; but it simply shows your willing to ignore reality for a fantasy. And I think two classromms full of little children lost their lives due to some gun nut that ignored reality for fantasy as well... quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 To avoid the little problem of the second amendment, you would have to make the damn things illegal for an individual to own, period. If the goverment wished to ban the sale of the AK-47 in total, it could. And it wouldn't be a violation of the 2nd amendment. Because the 2nd Amendment doesnt cover the commerce concept fo buying/selling. That is handled elsewhere in the US Consitution. Giving a person an AK-47 as a present, would STILL be considered 'selling' in that you are giving up an asset that has worth to another person. Creating an AK-47 from scratch would consitute 'buying' since you would have needed the materials to create the rifle. I'm not the one that created all these concepts, so dont get mad. Just trying to explain that the reality of things is different from the view you hold. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 What is wrong with responsible ownership? My weapons are secured, and if anyone wants to steal the gun safe as been suggested, if they can get it out of the house, I would be just as afraid to meet them in person without a weapon. The thing weighs 300 pounds. Took four of us to get it into my house in the first place. There are plenty of responible ownership of automobiles, right? Yet, people speed well above the post limit on a daily basis. They dont use turn signals, or obey every single traffic law on the books. But no one will argue a car couldnt be used as a weapon to kill others, right? There are plenty of youtube videos were the guns were given to someone else (i.e. girlfriend, mom, wife, etc) by a "law abiding and responsible gun owners" with very tragic consequences. The problem here is that when "One bad apple spoils the bunch", many people are either injured or killed. This week saw two full classrooms of first graders being slaughtered. There is going to be a tide-wave of anger over this. And none of those people will give a care if your the God of Responsible Gun Ownership. The more you resist, the more it will become concrete in their minds, that you are 'ok' with another classroom full of kids being mowed down by some lunatic. Being open to "Reasonable and Responsible Gun Laws" is a pretty wide and vague statement. What is reasonable to you is unreasonable to someone else (and vise versa). quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Every time there is something like this, which is not the norm, although for some reason, more frequent this year than any other year since Columbine, you people come up with the most extreme, restrictive and costly plan to restrict gun ownership. I find it curious that the Powerball Jackpot doesnt hit $350+ million dollars to often. But when it does, everyone seems to notice it. Your coworkers, family, friends, people you meet on the street. Its in the media, on websites, and even notice while standing in line for a pack of smokes. Shooting massacures are the same way. Everyday, there are many people killed by firearms. Due to murder, suicide, or accidental discharging of the weapons. But those do not make the news, unless its 'above' the norm. Unlike the Powerball Jackpot, which many people would like to win; being the family member of a murdered victim of a massacure is not something to wish. Everyone wants to be in the millionaire's club; take a wild guess how many desire to be the 'family of those killed by a mass murder' club? So it stands to reason, that keeping massive murders due to bad or poor laws regarding firearms will be changed, modfied and put in place. If your so sure of your position, jlf1961, go to that town and proudly tell those people that just lost their kids, how happy you are to have so many weapons whose primary purpose in existance is to kill. I want you to report back how many of them either didnt say anything or told you to go to hell and stay there. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 How has the ban on illegal drugs gone? The US has some of the strictest anti drug laws in the world. Better question: How would the nation be behaving, if those drugs were never banned in the first place? Its rather hard to imagine what the world would be like if the World Trade Centers in New York City didnt fall. Or if Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King wasn't assassinated, but died decades later of natural causes. Or if Pearl Harbor wasn't bombed, would the USA have gotten into the war, or simply stayed out as the Nazis took over most of Europe, Asia and Africa? Its a 'fun' idea, but no one really knows of 'what might have happened', right? Illegal drugs have nothing to do with some lunatic opening up with a rifle on a bunch of defenseless little children. So please stop with the 'smoke and mirrors', its simply a lame attempt at diverting attention away from the real problems of firearms. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 For that matter, what about the Uzi's, tech 9's, full auto AK's and god knows what else that are presently in the hands of gang bangers who account for more innocent children killed in the inner cities in one year than all of the mass shootings since Columbine? Was it the gang bangers that were responsible for their actions? Or the company that created those weapons in the first place? The answer is both are responsible. In addition, those that purchased the guns, and later lost them for any number of thousands of reasons. Your really not helping your arguement here.... quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Before you decide to take away my right to keep my guns that I legally bought in my home, under lock and key, solve that one effectively and permanently. Really? All those guns were sold in your home? Do you actually have 'door to door' salesmen that sell guns in your part of the country? Taking away people's guns is much like taking away their cars. It would be such a huge uproar that the whole thing would be silenced.....except for one little concept... Your willingness to comprosism. If you behave like Republicans in Congress on the 'Fiscal Cliff', that they were the designers of so many years ago; chances are, things will not look good for your side of the fence. By fighting people that are angry, sad, or very passionate of their cause, will only strengthen their resolve to remove your firearms. Because it translates to them, that you are 'ok' with another lunatic slaughtering ANOTHER classroom full of defenseless children in the future! So its really up to you and other pro-gun folks to understand that other US citizens really are not in the mood for your 'line-item' B.S. right now. And they have as much right as you do, to decide how society of this nation will deal with firearms going forward. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Now, I have said I am in favor of reasonable gun laws. You and others on this board are talking unreasonable, and in the idea of a ban, completely useless gun laws. As I stated above, what is reasonable to you is unreasonable to someone else, and vise versa. But your unwillingness to accept that reality is what it is, and the people of this nation care not of your fantasy, will only make matters worst for the nation in the long run. You and other pro-gun folks behave like you are in this post, and its all but a forgotten conclusion that ALL the firearms in private ownerhsip will be ban. That is the reality right now, jlf1961. Whether you and others choose to accept it, decides the fate of private ownership for Americans.

joether -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:57:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Your plan would put an extra expense to owning a semi automatic rifle or pistol, and you are saying your plan does not infringe or restrict any part of my rights under the second amendment. It guarentees you the right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment doesnt guarentee anyone the right to own a gun. It explains they can own a gun if said gun is to be used within the structure and rules of "A well regulated militia...". Your local police department has police officers that could reasonably have access to a firearm. Because they have rules, regulations, and chain-of-command (they are considered a direct 'well regulated militia'). And those rules are pretty indepth, long, and require one to be very professional. Which is also why we dont see police officers killing classrooms full of kids, right? Someone within the police force would notice if 'Officer Ted' was alittle more on edge due to home life, work, or life itself, and take steps to remove him from his firearm before something....dreadful....took place. I'm a bit surprised Tazzy, as you usually are the one that would research stuff like this to death before 'going to the press'. Your slacking! BTW, its not 'yours' or 'my' 2nd Amendment, its the United States of America's, 2nd Amendment. Not one American has total ownership of all other Americans, to decide the fate of any one concept in the US Consitituion. That would be known as a 'dictatorship'. Last I checked, our form of goverment is a 'Democratic Republic' in that 'We the People' elect other people to the House of Representives, The US Senate, and the Office of the President.

jlf1961 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 1:04:23 AM)
The assault weapon ban stopped the manufacture and sell of assault weapons after the day the bill became law, all weapons sold before the ban was enacted were legal to own, resell etc. I suggest your look here for the effectiveness of the ban. Now the real meaning for the term assault weapon is any select fire weapon with a barrel length of less than 18 inches. So in essence what the ban did was stop the manufacture and sales of the civilian versions of the weapons that are semi automatic. For the record, an automatic weapon fires more than one round when the trigger is pulled and continues to fire until the trigger is released. The ban did nothing that it was supposed to do. Now here is what had gun owners upset, and I have tried to explain it to you and others, but it does not seem to matter one bit. Repeal the second amendment, because it would mean that the private ownership of guns is no longer legal in the US. Okay, you have saved probably a thousand lives a year. Great, wonderful congratulations. Now what the hell are you going to do about the 30000 men, women and children killed in gang violence in this country every year? You (or the anti gun lobby) have saved maybe 1000 lives, that are not counted in the 30000 other people killed by guns in the US every year. In essence what is accomplished? I have asked that repeatedly and you have not answered the question. Next question, if you repeal the second amendment because of situations like mass shootings, what is to stop congress of the supreme court from overturning Roe v. Wade? Or any other amendment that gives people a problem? Which amendment is next? The first? That one has a lot of people on the extreme right a little pissed. Remember the fuss about the ground zero mosque? The precedent would have been set.

came4U -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 1:05:25 AM)
Was gone on a drive and still trying to catch up on news (and this thread) on this tragedy but they still haven't discovered much or not telling much (?)

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 2:50:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 +1 quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Considering what has happened, I find it in poor tastes to argue this. To me both Pro gun and anit gun control are capitalizing on this as in previous cases, neither side seem to be intrenched on their view point, nothing will be done. I would find it far more offensive if we were NOT having these sorts of conversations. Me too. Talking about what happened is a natural and normal reaction to an immense tragedy. Examining ways it could have been avoided, ditto.

Just0Plain0Mike -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 3:01:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: No background checks required for sales at most gun shows, either. How convenient. I'm sure that's a deep dark secret that no gun owners know about, nor even criminals know about. Shhhhh ... Those are also considered "private sales". Something I have been bitching about for a while now. There is absolutely no way that private sales can be considered "most" sales at any show. I've been to dozens of shows, most sales I see are at the booths of dealers. Those are NOT private sales and every one is background checked. I own 6 guns, 3 of which were purchased at a gun show. I filled exactly the same paperwork for the guns I bought in stores as I did at shows.

DomKen -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 6:30:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Since you asked, here is what I own: M1A, the semi automatic rifle that replaced the M1 Gerand, the mainstay of US forces in WW2. Caliber .308 max capacity 10 rounds Model 70 bolt action winchester, caliber 7mm magnum, capacity 5 rounds. Russian SKS rifle, semi automatic, reloaded by stripper clips. WW2 Mainstay of the russian army. simi auto. CZ 550 bolt action rifle, 308 caliber. Bushmaster .223 or 5.56 mm assault style semi automatic rifle, usually use a five round mag, have six 15 round mags. DPMS Panther 3G1 Rifle RFLR3G1, 308 Winchester/7.62 NATO, this is an assault style rifle, normally use five round mag, own six 15 round mags Glock 19 9mm semi automatic pistol Colt model 1911 45acp pistol, semi auto Smith and wesson 44 magnum revolver. 44 mag desert eagle, semi auto. 12 gauge pump shotgun What the fuck do you need with all of that? 2 assault rifles 2 battle rifles 2 hunting rifles 4 handguns 1 shotgun The M1 and the SKS might be collectors items but that still leaves 4 long rifles 2 of which are pretty much of no use except for killing people. 4 handguns 2 of which exist only to compensate for dick size even if you allow the possibility that handguns have any puprose besides killing people. Really what makes you feel you need all that firepower. BTW I own exactly 2 firearms and am quite content. A .30-30 deer rifle and a 12 gauge pump.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 6:44:48 AM)
Talking about ways it could have been avoided and playing the blame game in furtherance of agendas, are 2 entirely different things. The former has been pretty well drowned out the latter. quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 +1 quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro Considering what has happened, I find it in poor tastes to argue this. To me both Pro gun and anit gun control are capitalizing on this as in previous cases, neither side seem to be intrenched on their view point, nothing will be done. I would find it far more offensive if we were NOT having these sorts of conversations. Me too. Talking about what happened is a natural and normal reaction to an immense tragedy. Examining ways it could have been avoided, ditto.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 6:46:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Just0Plain0Mike quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: No background checks required for sales at most gun shows, either. How convenient. I'm sure that's a deep dark secret that no gun owners know about, nor even criminals know about. Shhhhh ... Those are also considered "private sales". Something I have been bitching about for a while now. There is absolutely no way that private sales can be considered "most" sales at any show. I've been to dozens of shows, most sales I see are at the booths of dealers. Those are NOT private sales and every one is background checked. I own 6 guns, 3 of which were purchased at a gun show. I filled exactly the same paperwork for the guns I bought in stores as I did at shows. Private sales at gun shows require no background checks. I never said they were "most sales". Get em out of a bunch.

slvemike4u -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 6:47:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I was being hones before. I have always been an advocate of responsible, enforceable, comprehensive and reasonable gun control laws. But what is pissing me off is that I put on uniform and served this country voluntarily, to protect the rights of everyone to say or do anything they wanted within the law. And for that service I get people who, while not you tazzy, either want to eliminate one of my rights, restrict my rights or otherwise tell me where, when, and how I can exercise my rights under the second amendment. Your plan would put an extra expense to owning a semi automatic rifle or pistol, and you are saying your plan does not infringe or restrict any part of my rights under the second amendment. Remember that woman in Nevada that was running for the senate? The one that made the comment about if the election was lost, there was still second amendment remedies, I am beginning to understand her point. My grandfather fought against a dictator that took his country's citizens right to keep guns. He enlisted on the 8th of december 1941. He was medically discharged in January 1945. He died in 1954 when the bullet fragment he had near his heart moved and punched a hole in it and he literally bled to death with each heart beat. I earned a purple heart on Grenada in 1983. You know what? You and everyone that stands against the rights I fought and served for got the better end of the deal, if a plan like yours is ever adopted. Me and every son of a bitch that ever wore a uniform and sacrificed for this country age gonna get screwed. FFS,you did not,your grandfather did not,no one who ever wore a uniform did so to protect any particular ,specific right. What you,your grandfather and every other serviceman fought to protect was the right to self determination of a free people...and if those same free people decide that the cost of you and other jackasses owning semi-automatic weapons is too damm hight that tough fucking shit. The rest of us have rights too,somewhere along the way you might have heard that....our rights,our lives ,hang in the balance...so your claim of some higher right for having served,and earned a purple heart is falling on deaf ears as far as I am concerned. 20 little coffins will do that.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 6:52:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Your plan would put an extra expense to owning a semi automatic rifle or pistol... I discover a solution... I don't see how you got to concluding that it's a "solution". K. When you change the context, Im sure you wouldnt.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 6:53:47 AM)
Where does anyone with reading ability get the idea passing a law fixes a problem with human nature? The whole of human history says different. Unless I'm wrong, shooting children is already against the law? There are real tragedies in life. Few fix. Insane people, cancer, the many political bullies about on the planet, and so on. What matters is what we can do CONSTRUCTIVELY that helps matters. The focus on laws in no way changes the disturbed people who take innocent lives for often incomprehensible reasons. What can we actually do about people who think mass killing is any sort of solution to their immediate problems?? Having an entertainment industry that Doesn't romanticize extreme violence might be a good step? But expecting restraint and responsibility in any profit driven industry is laughable. Laws, like police, are reactive measures and do little or nothing to prevent criminal or insane actions, at best they change the tools used. The real solutions are much harder than one more feel good and ultimately useless law added to the current list of laws that aren't stopping insanity and tragedy. When ALL guns are forbidden and you still see news footage of gun death, what next? If $100,000,000,000 (BILLION!) of illegal drugs are crossing our borders yearly (What the govt admits to), how is any law or laws going to prevent people obtaining firearms? And what depth of police intrusion into our homes and lives is necessary to even actually lower the amount of gun ownership now in the country? My experience and the world wide issues with overzealous and unrestrained police make the current levels of mass violence in the USA in no way an excuse to risk losing All our freedoms in exchange for a false illusion of safety.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 6:54:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Your plan would put an extra expense to owning a semi automatic rifle or pistol, and you are saying your plan does not infringe or restrict any part of my rights under the second amendment. It guarentees you the right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment doesnt guarentee anyone the right to own a gun. It explains they can own a gun if said gun is to be used within the structure and rules of "A well regulated militia...". Your local police department has police officers that could reasonably have access to a firearm. Because they have rules, regulations, and chain-of-command (they are considered a direct 'well regulated militia'). And those rules are pretty indepth, long, and require one to be very professional. Which is also why we dont see police officers killing classrooms full of kids, right? Someone within the police force would notice if 'Officer Ted' was alittle more on edge due to home life, work, or life itself, and take steps to remove him from his firearm before something....dreadful....took place. I'm a bit surprised Tazzy, as you usually are the one that would research stuff like this to death before 'going to the press'. Your slacking! Since it does not, then no one is trampling on any of your rights and we can simply take all guns away. [:D] quote: BTW, its not 'yours' or 'my' 2nd Amendment, its the United States of America's, 2nd Amendment. Not one American has total ownership of all other Americans, to decide the fate of any one concept in the US Consitituion. That would be known as a 'dictatorship'. Last I checked, our form of goverment is a 'Democratic Republic' in that 'We the People' elect other people to the House of Representives, The US Senate, and the Office of the President. I cannot find where I placed a modifier to the 2nd Amendment. ahem.... please point that out to me. [:D]

Just0Plain0Mike -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 6:55:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: Just0Plain0Mike quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: No background checks required for sales at most gun shows, either. How convenient. I'm sure that's a deep dark secret that no gun owners know about, nor even criminals know about. Shhhhh ... Those are also considered "private sales". Something I have been bitching about for a while now. There is absolutely no way that private sales can be considered "most" sales at any show. I've been to dozens of shows, most sales I see are at the booths of dealers. Those are NOT private sales and every one is background checked. I own 6 guns, 3 of which were purchased at a gun show. I filled exactly the same paperwork for the guns I bought in stores as I did at shows. Private sales at gun shows require no background checks. I never said they were "most sales". Get em out of a bunch. I was commenting on your post and the one above it, which is why I quoted both. However I did misread it somewhat. The OP states that "No background checks required for sales at most gun shows, either", as opposed to most sales at guns shows. That being said, you're still not quite correct. The OP is even less so. Most sales at all gun shows require background checks. The exceptions to this are, as you stated, private sales between individuals, which under Federal law don't require background checks. This varies by state however, since many have enacted stricter laws. For example, in PA, private sales on long-arms, rifles and shotguns, can be conducted without a background check, but all sales of handguns must go through an FFL, thus requiring a background check. This has nothing to do with a gun show. You can conduct this sort of private sale anytime, there is nothing special about a gun show that allows a "loop hole" as is so often touted. I could answer a Craig's list ad, a forum post, or an ad in the Penny Saver and conduct this sort of private transfer. Now personally, I'd never conduct a private sale like this. It's worth it to me to pay the extra $25-50 dollars that a dealer will charge to do the transfer, conduct a background check, and file the paperwork. That way the gun is legally out of my name, and I don't have to worry what the buyer does with it after that. It also prevents you from getting in trouble later if the buyer isn't legally allowed to own a firearm. Technically, as long as you ask you're ok, since the law states that as long as you do not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the person is prohibited you can make the sale, but I've heard of people getting in trouble anyway.

PeonForHer -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 7:01:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I would find it far more offensive if we were NOT having these sorts of conversations. Yep. As far as I'm concerned, the duty of those in a community who are not overwhelmed by grief is to find practical solutions. (That was a cultural belief that became especially marked here during the Blitz of WW2, so some of our cultural critics have argued.) The death of Princess Diana here in the UK marked a watershed, though: at the point, it became abundantly clear that outpouring of emotions had ceased to be just a natural and unavoidable thing that we should all put up with, it was now the required thing to do; more than that, it was the most 'admirably human' thing to do. This tragedy had its political causes; therefore it's going to require political solutions. If it's become somehow now 'tasteless' in this or that culture to seek out such solutions - then I'm more than happy to be considered 'tasteless'.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 11:34:17 AM)
The news today shows how short institutional memory is. The Democratic party seems destined to self-destruct it's temporary advantage and re-energize the Right with one more ill-advised campaign for yet more gun laws. Obama wouldn't be president if so many conservative Americans hadn't taken a close look at Romney and seen just one more greedy rich guy mouthing conservative 'values' and just stayed home in an election between two distasteful-to-them candidates. A serious effort to take guns out of the hands of responsible citizens will stop the current momentum for sanity in general public policy dead in it's tracks. As it should. People who think gun prohibitions will stop mass killers are so far removed from reality they should not be making national policy decisions. The real agenda for intelligent American political decisions mustn't be detoured from the move to the sort of policy deliberations we need on the things we Can change. To solve the issues of mass killers in the modern world we first have to completely alter the romanticizing and rationalization of violence as a way to solve personal and social issues. This is hard. Passing one more useless and probably counter-productive gun control law is easy. Just like throwing money at the War on Drugs. Which has corrupted every level of government in the Western Hemisphere and made America the most imprisoned society in history. While Every illegal drug is available and affordable in every town in the US. Can someone Please explain to me how laws threatening to put people in jail for owning or misusing firearms alters decisions by someone planning to commit suicide at the conclusion of their murder spree?

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625