|
joether -> RE: It Doesn't Have to Be A Mass Shooting To Be Awful (10/11/2015 7:55:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
From what I can see on these boards, no one has defended the killer or killers who have used a gun.
If that was even remotely true, why do we as a nation have so much trouble passing good and reasonable firearm laws?
The people fighting against those laws are the very people like Mr. Jones. In 'everyday life' they are normal and 'responsible' individuals. The ones that say "gun violence is by people whom are mental/emotional compromised". Yet, if that is true, explain how Mr. Jones, whom is mentally and emotionally stable, killed one person and injured three others?
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
All I have ever defended was my right, or any American's right to own a gun.
What do they call individuals just moments before they are found guilty in a court of law, by a jury of their peers of murdering someone with a gun?
"An honest and law abiding person".
Your defending future law breakers. Not a good position to hold.....
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
You asked if he had not had a gun, could he have inflicted as much damage.
Well, in my years in law enforcement, I can answer honestly, yes, he could have. I have seen more damage inflicted with a blunt object than I ever did with a gun, and fatally so. In one case, a woman sewed her abusive husband up in a bed sheet and promptly beat him with a metal broom handle, the damage to his body was so severe that he spent 8 weeks in ICU.
We are not talking one dude tied up. Four individuals whom are as able bodied as the attacker. Even a martial artist, whom has spent YEARS training, knows how to exit a verbal confrontation like an adult (i.e. without the need to beat/kill someone). The problem with blind rage verse the martial artist, is that the actions of the martial artist have to be coordinated. Meaning, part of it is 'muscle memory' and the rest is thinking tactically. Did I point out the problem with blind rage?
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Guns for the most part are quick, clean and efficient. That is what makes them desirable for hunting, and unfortunately murder or war.
At least you tell the truth. That is something conservatives at large in the nation can not express. That they try all sorts of lame gimicks and sayings to try to evade/dodge the reality. When they do this, they are looked at as being dishonest. Would you trust someone with a firearm whom is known to be dishonest? I wouldn't!
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
I will say this, if the individual is so enraged that he takes another life, he is going to find a way to do it.
One guy of average fighting skill verse four of average fighting skill. The one guy gets beaten to a pulp the grand majority of times. The point is he had a firearm, used it on unarmed individuals because he was to pissed off to think things through to the logical conclusion. When you have a firearm, the expectation is to have an even greater level of self control. Just the like martial artist.
"With great power goes great responsibility".
-J. Hector Fezandie, 1894
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
But there is more going on here. He's a young adult. According to neuroscience, the human brain is not fully developed. An will not be until at least another twelve to fifteen years takes place. In essence, what we consider 'wisdom with age' is really our brains developing fully by our early 30's. That is why most 30-somethings do not do stupid ship like teenagers (unless they are drunk and/or on drugs). Youtube is chalk full of videos of teenagers doing stupid and foolish stuff that as we watch it say to ourselves "there is no way this can end well".
This is an interesting statement, and to the credit of the government, the basis for the logic behind the national drinking age of 21 and the fact no one under 21 can buy a handgun.
It's a college campus. A place were alcoholic beverages are as common as books. A place know for young adults doing stupid things. It was a powder keg before. Now we add firearms to the mix. What could possibly go wrong....
In a side note, Texas legislatures have allowed CCW to be allowed on college and university campuses. Again, college + heavy beer drinking + firearms = many funerals. Yes, young adults can say until their blue in the face that they are responsible firearm owners. I met a lot of people in college that were normally responsible young adults. Until they were drunk. Which usually forced me to keep them out of trouble. I can't imagine if one of them had a firearm and started goofing off. Tragedy waiting to happen if you ask me!
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
However, the government does allow these immature, individuals without a fully developed brain to put on a uniform and kill and die for their country.
The difference is those individuals are in "A well regulated militia....". They have rules, chain of commands and most of all penalties. What is the penalty for being drunk while on sentry duty in a warzone? I can't imagine its a 'smack upside the head' and told "Don't do that again". Even taking out the drunk effect, just fooling around like young adults do. What would happen if the officer found a pair goofing off on the line?
There is a big difference between behaving in a warzone to behaving in civilian life in the nation. Fucking around with a firearm in public; no police officer is going to care if you were in the military or not!
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Hence my statement to the effect, you cant have it both ways.
Funny thing is, we can have it both ways. It is called 'laws'. Mr. Jones is not 21 years of age, but 18. Maybe we have to reexamine if young adults ages 18-21 should be allowed a firearm outside of a military position. Its hard to say how much more the brain has developed in those three years. There are no 'hard and fast' rules on medical science as it concerns mental/emotional development in those three years. Everyone grows at different rates. Yet at age 21, the likelihood of doing stupid/foolish stuff has decreased.
But we are not talking about people, with normal mindsets handing a firearm. We are talking about an individual so angry that they were willing to kill other people with a firearm. That he had easy access to a firearm. That if he didn't have a firearm, he might have just stormed off and calmed down from the encounter. One young man would be alive, three others not in a hospital. The guy without the gun, not facing some serious legal challenges to his 'free status'.
This one firearm, because it was handled incorrectly, negatively effected five individuals. That if it was handled correctly or none at all, all of this would have been averted.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Should everyone own a gun, no. Should there be restrictions to who can and cannot buy a gun, yes. Are there laws in place to accomplish these things, again yes.
If that was true, explain all the mass shootings? Explain all the shootings in America? Explain all the suicides by firearms?
The laws are not able to handle the current demands this nation needs. A wife beater can get a gun. A very depressed individual can get a gun. A kid can get into his father's gun safe as easily as he can get into the house; and has a 'bone to pick' with another class mate. Someone with intent to murder people, can get a gun. Not everyone getting a gun, will have good moral codes. In fact, some of those with good moral codes, become corrupted with time; or, in the case of Mr. Jones, not possess the social skills to handle a conversation like an adult.
I agree, not all people should have firearms. The ones that are belligerent, threatening, 'anger management issues', suffering from mental/emotional problems, as well as those individuals not allowed on the books, should be allowed access to a firearm.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Are the properly funded to work, no.
Agree there!
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Do we need more gun control laws, no, we need the system fixed so the laws we have can and will work.
In order to fix the system as you say, requires the creation of more gun laws. The only way an existing law (be it gun control, money regulation, or FFA adjustment) is fixed/updated, requires a bill to be voted into law. That bill would state what is being updated. So while we do get new laws, much of it is simply updating previous materials that either didn't work, or work as originally intended.
I really do not understand why people can not understand that concept. Been like that for 220+ years....
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Do the gun control people care about these facts, no, they want more laws that wont work because the apparatus and infrastructure to make them work cant function without money that is budgeted but spent somewhere else.
As I see thinks, there are two groups of people when it comes to the 'other side' in the gun debate: gun controllers and concern citizens.
Gun Controllers: These people are just the dynamic opposites of Gun Nuts in my view. They are just as crazy and unstable in their views. While they think they have the nation's best needs to heart; much of their thought process is flaws because there is more areas of grey than black or white (again, just like Gun Nuts). They can be very unreasonable people particularly if they figure out your viewpoints on firearms do not match theirs. They also know how to push the buttons of fear and distress onto Concern Citizens. That Gun Controllers make 'Gun Owners' to appear like 'Gun Nuts' (Gun Nuts do the same with Gun Owners in the reversal). They, like Gun Nuts represent 15-20% of the nation's voting population (so 30-40% total).
Concern Citizens: Hey, everyone has guns and there are laws, right? This group would like to believe Gun Owners are trust-able individuals, they see in the news the staggering violence caused by firearms. Most of them usually do not own firearms. The remainder do own firearms, but not because they want to. Meaning there are conditions by which that gun in in their possession. Concern Citizens are like the opposites of Gun owners in many ways. Sane, intelligent, reasonable individuals. They want the nation to be safe, and less violence from idiots with guns.
If concern Citizens and Gun Owners (whom make up the remaining voting population, aka the majority) were ever to sit down, air out their problems, compromise fairly on gun control; they nation would have better gun control over night. Less intrusive, less annoying, less complicated. So what stops them?
Gun Nuts and Gun Controllers.
Facts apart from statistics are very hard to come by. The GOP/TP has effectively prevented the Centers for Disease Control from running tests and experiments of a lavatory nature. Much like ABC and the Philadephia PD did some years ago. Testing many concepts and myths in a safe environment and determine realities from the fantasies.
About a year ago, a pro-2nd amendment group tried some tests simpler to the ABC experiment. This was in the aftermath of the Charlie Herbo in France just months earlier. They placed one person with a CCW and some defenders against two 'tango's with full automatic AKs. They were firing paint rounds with full body armor. Safety is very important when handing firearms, right? They tried many variations. Each time the CCW engaged the attackers, the CCW not only died, but didn't score a hit/kill on the attackers. When the CCW fled with everyone else, the chances they and the defenders lived went up dramatically.
From a tactical perspective, it makes sense. That CCW is no match for two full auto AKs. But if it was used to lay suppression fire as everyone was retreating, might force the attackers to pause in their advance. Granted, more tests would need to be performed to see if this was a better strategy.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
And it is my opinion, with lots of supporting evidence, that the politicians want to keep it this way.
The politicians will drift in which ever way most Americans want. In the last midterm election, we say the fewest number of people voting; 36.6% of the total population. So for every ten people, three voted. Those three are determining who gets into public office and decides on laws. If say, two more people joined on the side of better gun control measures, that's half the nation. But it would mean more people want things to get done. If more people say they want better and tougher firearm laws, the politicians will move in that direction. At current, the nation could care less if another kindergarten class full of twenty or thirty kids were mowed down by some nut with a gun.
|
|
|
|
